Lenahan v. Forkey

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lenahan v. Forkey

655 So. 2d 1311, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6403, 1995 WL 353470

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 14, 1995

DocketNo. 94-0477

StatusPublished

This text of 655 So. 2d 1311 (Lenahan v. Forkey) 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

Lenahan v. Forkey, 655 So. 2d 1311, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6403, 1995 WL 353470 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PARIENTE, Judge.

This court has reviewed the order being appealed, granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant’s counterclaim. Both the main claim and the counterclaim arise from the rendering of legal services to appellant by appellee. The original claim, which is interrelated with the counterclaim and arises from the same transaction, remains pending. Accordingly, an appeal from an order disposing of the counterclaim is premature. See Cohen, Scherer, & Cohen, P.A. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 654 So.2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A., 621 So.2d 507 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974).

The fact that the trial court stayed the main claim pending disposition of this appeal does not create an exception to this principle so as to permit an appeal. It merely reinforces our conclusion that both the complaint and the counterclaim are in fact interrelated.

This appeal is therefore sua sponte dismissed without prejudice to appellant’s right to appeal after final determination of the main claim.

STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PARIENTE, Judge.

This court has reviewed the order being appealed, granting summary judgment in favor of appellee on appellant’s counterclaim. Both the main claim and the counterclaim arise from the rendering of legal services to appellant by appellee. The original claim, which is interrelated with the counterclaim and arises from the same transaction, remains pending. Accordingly, an appeal from an order disposing of the counterclaim is premature. See Cohen, Scherer, & Cohen, P.A. v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 654 So.2d 282 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen, DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A., 621 So.2d 507 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974).

The fact that the trial court stayed the main claim pending disposition of this appeal does not create an exception to this principle so as to permit an appeal. It merely reinforces our conclusion that both the complaint and the counterclaim are in fact interrelated.

This appeal is therefore sua sponte dismissed without prejudice to appellant’s right to appeal after final determination of the main claim.

STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

655 So. 2d 1311, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 6403, 1995 WL 353470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenahan-v-forkey-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack