Columbia Bank v. Barry D. Joye, Luronda S. Joye, Greater etc.

241 So. 3d 281
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 30, 2018
Docket17-4150
StatusPublished

This text of 241 So. 3d 281 (Columbia Bank v. Barry D. Joye, Luronda S. Joye, Greater etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Columbia Bank v. Barry D. Joye, Luronda S. Joye, Greater etc., 241 So. 3d 281 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D17-4150 _____________________________

COLUMBIA BANK,

Appellant,

v.

BARRY D. JOYE; LURONDA S. JOYE; GREATER SOUTHEASTERN LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC; BRUCE NAYLOR; GARY SORENSEN; SOUTHEASTERN PAVING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC; TONY D. RICHARDS; and DONALD K. JOYE,

Appellees. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Columbia County. E. Bailey Browning, III, Judge.

April 30, 2018

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s response to the Court’s order of October 20, 2017, the Court has determined that the order on appeal is not a final order or appealable non-final order. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal.

Appellant seeks review of an order granting a motion to dismiss its amended counterclaim. We dismiss the appeal for two reasons. First, the order grants a motion to dismiss without actually dismissing. An order that merely grants a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, but that does not enter judgment on the motion, or otherwise qualify as a judgment, is not a final appealable order. See Dedge v. Crosby, 914 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

Second, the order is not presently appealable because counterclaims and cross-claims, related to the claims addressed in the order on appeal, remain pending. Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So. 2d 1218, 1220-1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (dismissing appeal from order that did not dispose of remaining claims involving related facts); Northcutt v. Pathway Fin., 555 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (holding interrelatedness depends on “whether there is a factual and legal overlap between the claims”).

The dismissal is without prejudice to seeking review upon rendition of a final order that disposes of all claims, including the pending, related counterclaims and cross-claims.

ROBERTS, KELSEY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Nicholas V. Pulignano, Jr. and Meagan L. Logan, of Marks Gray, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Adam L. Morrison of Sellers, Taylor & Morrison, P.A., Live Oak, for Appellee Gary Sorensen.

No appearances for Appellees Barry D. Joye, Donald K. Joye, Luronda S. Joye, Greater Southeastern Land Development, LLC, Bruce Naylor, Southeastern Paving & Construction, LLC, or Tony D. Richards.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Jensen v. Whetstine
985 So. 2d 1218 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Northcutt v. Pathway Financial
555 So. 2d 368 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Dedge v. Crosby
914 So. 2d 1055 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
241 So. 3d 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-bank-v-barry-d-joye-luronda-s-joye-greater-etc-fladistctapp-2018.