Cordoba v. Strawberry Fields Housing Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cordoba v. Strawberry Fields Housing Corp.

614 So. 2d 517, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13932

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 24, 1992

DocketNo. 92-1126

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 614 So. 2d 517 (Cordoba v. Strawberry Fields Housing Corp.) 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

Cordoba v. Strawberry Fields Housing Corp., 614 So. 2d 517, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13932 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

An examination of the amended complaint discloses that Count I for breach of contract and Count II for conversion are based upon the identical facts and circumstances; and Count III is for fraud based upon the same facts and circumstances. Consequently, the causes of action are all interrelated and within the meaning of Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). The order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Counts II and III and transferring Count I to the County Judges’ Court constituted an interlocutory order. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize the filing of a motion for rehearing directed to an interlocutory order. Consequently, the notice of appeal lodged in this court was untimely filed and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction thereof. The appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted. The order of this court denying the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is vacated. The appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted without prejudice to the appellants’ remedy in the county court.

It is so ordered.

HUBBART, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.

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

An examination of the amended complaint discloses that Count I for breach of contract and Count II for conversion are based upon the identical facts and circumstances; and Count III is for fraud based upon the same facts and circumstances. Consequently, the causes of action are all interrelated and within the meaning of Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla.1974). The order granting defendant’s motion to dismiss as to Counts II and III and transferring Count I to the County Judges’ Court constituted an interlocutory order. The Rules of Civil Procedure do not authorize the filing of a motion for rehearing directed to an interlocutory order. Consequently, the notice of appeal lodged in this court was untimely filed and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction thereof. The appellee’s motion for rehearing is granted. The order of this court denying the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is vacated. The appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal is granted without prejudice to the appellants’ remedy in the county court.

It is so ordered.

HUBBART, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

614 So. 2d 517, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 13932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cordoba-v-strawberry-fields-housing-corp-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack