Ferber v. Franzese
This text of 507 So. 2d 780 (Ferber v. Franzese) 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
Ferber and Franzese formed a partnership, later converted into corporate form, for the operation of an Amoco service station in Coconut Grove, Miami. Under disputed circumstances which remain unresolved below, Ferber left the Grove operation and opened another Amoco station in Miami Beach. Each sued the other for interests in the respective businesses. Without determining whether, or to what extent either of the erstwhile partners is entitled to recovery, the trial judge ordered Ferber to render an accounting to Franzese as to the Miami Beach enterprise, and Franzese to account to Ferber concerning the one in the Grove. Ferber petitions for certiorari to review the former accounting; Franzese cross-petitions from the latter. Since the actual liability of the partners has not yet been determined, we conclude that appellate review of these non-final orders by certiorari or otherwise is both unauthorized and inappropriate. E.g., Heritage [781]*781Paper Co. v. Farah, 440 So.2d 389, 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (order of accounting without determination of liability unreviewable by non-final appeal or certiorari); Morton v. City of Miami Beach, 376 So.2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same).1 Accordingly, the petition and cross-petition are denied without prejudice to review on plenary appeal from any final judgment rendered below.
Certiorari denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
507 So. 2d 780, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1329, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 8448, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferber-v-franzese-fladistctapp-1987.