DANIELLE FORREY v. MARLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedMay 24, 2024
Docket2023-1051
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
DANIELLE FORREY v. MARLIN CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

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

Silvestrone v. Edell
721 So. 2d 1173 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1998)
Murphy White Dairy, Inc. v. Simmons
405 So. 2d 298 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
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.