Dwain's Foodland, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dwain's Foodland, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance

738 So. 2d 477, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10099, 1999 WL 546989

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 29, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0342

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 738 So. 2d 477 (Dwain's Foodland, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance) 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

Dwain's Foodland, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance, 738 So. 2d 477, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10099, 1999 WL 546989 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this case, in the order appealed from, the trial court states that appellant “is bound by the appraisal report rendered on December 5, 1997, and is precluded from further recovery under the terms of the subject policy.” However, the court also “specifically reserves jurisdiction to consider further arguments regarding prejudgment interest, taxable costs and attorney’s fees.” Such reservation of jurisdiction to determine prejudgment interest is improper in a final judgment. Cf. McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992)(reflecting that it is improper, in an order which purports to be a final judgment, for the trial court to reserve jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest).

For this reason, this appeal is sua sponte DISMISSED. See generally Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Such dismissal is without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a timely notice of appeal after a final order disposing of all issues, including prejudgment interest, has been rendered in the case below.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this case, in the order appealed from, the trial court states that appellant “is bound by the appraisal report rendered on December 5, 1997, and is precluded from further recovery under the terms of the subject policy.” However, the court also “specifically reserves jurisdiction to consider further arguments regarding prejudgment interest, taxable costs and attorney’s fees.” Such reservation of jurisdiction to determine prejudgment interest is improper in a final judgment. Cf. McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1992)(reflecting that it is improper, in an order which purports to be a final judgment, for the trial court to reserve jurisdiction to award prejudgment interest).

For this reason, this appeal is sua sponte DISMISSED. See generally Benton v. Moore, 655 So.2d 1272, 1273 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Such dismissal is without prejudice to appellant’s right to file a timely notice of appeal after a final order disposing of all issues, including prejudgment interest, has been rendered in the case below.

ERVIN, LAWRENCE and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

738 So. 2d 477, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 10099, 1999 WL 546989, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dwains-foodland-inc-v-cincinnati-insurance-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack