CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION v. ALL INSURANCE RESTORATION SERVICES, INC., A/A/O MARIE GUERRIER

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 17, 2023
• Docket: 22-0596
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 17, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0596 Lower Tribunal No. 19-17781CC ________________

Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, Appellant,

vs.

All Insurance Restoration Services, Inc., a/a/o Marie Guerrier, Appellee.

An appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Gloria Gonzalez-Meyer, Judge.

Paul R. Pearcy, P.A., and Maureen G. Pearcy, for appellant.

Giasi Law, P.A., Melissa A. Giasi, and Erin M. Berger (Tampa), for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.

MILLER, J. In this first-party property dispute, appellant, Citizens Property

Insurance Corporation, appeals an order granting summary judgment in

favor of appellee, All Insurance Restoration Services, Inc. Notwithstanding

the adverse interlocutory ruling, the trial court later dismissed the case. The

order of dismissal specified “with prejudice.” Despite ultimately prevailing in

the lawsuit, Citizens filed a notice of appeal.

We issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be

dismissed as from a “wholly favorable judgment.” Dep’t of Health v.

Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., 935 So. 2d 636, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA

2006) (“An appeal of a wholly favorable judgment must be dismissed.”). In

response, Citizens asserted the dismissal order was potentially adverse

because it included a prevailing party reference and reservation of

jurisdiction to adjudicate All Insurance’s pending fee motion. 1

Our disposition of this appeal is guided by several enduring legal

principles. It is well-settled that interlocutory orders merge into the final

judgment. Oliver v. Stone, 940 So. 2d 526, 529 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citation

omitted) (“It is well established that a trial court may reconsider and modify

interlocutory orders at any time until final judgment is entered. All

interlocutory proceedings, however, are merged into and disposed of by the

1 The fee claim has since been withdrawn.

2 final judgment.”). Equally established is that appellate courts review

“judgments, not statements in opinions.” Black v. Cutter Lab’ys, 351 U.S.

292, 297 (1956). As a result, only a party aggrieved by a judgment may

ordinarily maintain an appeal. See Witt v. Baars, 18 So. 330, 330 (Fla. 1895)

(“The bill having been dismissed as to the appellant Mary Witt, no relief

whatever having been granted against her, or any liability adjudged against

her or her estate, she cannot appeal; and the appeal as to her should be

dismissed . . . .”); Colonnade 101 SE, Inc. v. Cordero, 194 So. 3d 446, 448

n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[A] party cannot appeal an order which is wholly in

its favor.”); Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 700 So. 2d 113, 115

(Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“The general rule is that parties cannot file proceedings

to review an order of judgment in their favor.”); Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark

Chem. Co., 67 So. 2d 540, 541 (Fla. 1953) (dismissing “an appeal from a

decision favorable to the appellant”).

Here, the order of dismissal did not grant any relief against Citizens.

In fact, the opposite is true. In dismissing the case with prejudice, the trial

court simultaneously absolved Citizens of any liability and eliminated the

possibility the case would be subsequently refiled. Further, to the extent the

trial court reserved jurisdiction to rule on the pending fee motion, “[a] trial

court’s reservation of jurisdiction to award prevailing party attorney’s fees or

3 impose sanctions are collateral matters to the main dispute.” HSBC Bank

USA, Nat’l Ass’n for Fremont Home Loan Tr. 2005-B, Mortg.-Backed

Certificates, Series 2005-B v. Buset, 216 So. 3d 701, 703 (Fla. 3d DCA

2017). It is axiomatic that any order awarding attorney’s fees would be

separately appealable. Id. at 703–04. Accordingly, we conclude Citizens

was not aggrieved by the final judgment, and we dismiss the appeal.

Dismissed.