DANIELLE FORREY v. MARLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
This text of DANIELLE FORREY v. MARLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC (DANIELLE FORREY v. MARLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC) 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.
Opinion
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 6D23-1051 Lower Tribunal No. 20-CA-006229 _____________________________
DANIELLE FORREY,
Appellant,
v. MARLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC,
Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County. Keith R. Kyle, Judge.
May 24, 2024
MIZE, J.
Appellant, Danielle Forrey, appeals the trial court’s order denying her motion
for summary judgment and the trial court’s order granting the motion for summary
judgment filed by Appellee, Marlin Construction Group, LLC.1 Based on our recent
decision in Marlin Construction Group, LLC v. Kris Bollinger, No. 6D-23-810, 2024
WL 1432150 (Fla. 6th DCA April 3, 2024), we reverse the trial court’s order
1 This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023. granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Appellee and remand this case
to the trial court with instructions to conduct further proceedings consistent with our
opinion in Marlin Construction Group, LLC v. Bollinger.
The trial court’s order denying Appellee’s motion for summary judgment was
a non-final order. Although we are authorized to review that order, we decline to do
so. See Murphy White Dairy, Inc. v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 298, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA
1981). This decision is without prejudice to the trial court reconsidering that order
on remand if it deems it appropriate to do so. See Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So. 2d
1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998) (“[T]he trial court retains inherent authority to reconsider
and, if deemed appropriate, alter or retract any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry
of the final judgment or order terminating an action.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
NARDELLA and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Celene H. Humphries, of Celene Humphries, PLLC., Spring City, Tennessee, for Appellant.
Scott J. Hertz and Jack C. Morgan, of Aloia Roland Lubell & Morgan, PLLC, Fort Meyers, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
DANIELLE FORREY v. MARLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/danielle-forrey-v-marlin-construction-group-llc-fladistctapp-2024.