Nava Jacobs v. Anita Jacob

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 16, 2024.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-1971

Lower Tribunal No. 22-1674

________________

Nava Jacobs,

Appellant,

vs.

Anita Jacob, et al.,

Appellees.

An Appeal from a nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.

Schlesinger Law Group, Michael J. Schlesinger, Luis E. Barreto & Associates, P.A., and Luis E. Barreto, for appellant.

Rosenthal Rosenthal Rasco LLC, Eduardo I. Rasco, and Steve M.

Bimston, for appellees.

Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.

MILLER, J.

Appellant challenges an order granting, in part, a motion to dismiss her second amended complaint. The order on review merely states that it is “granting, in part, defendant’s motion to dismiss second amended complaint, or alternatively, for a more definite statement.” It neither contains words of finality nor enters judgment in favor of appellees. Because this is not a final order capable of review, we lack jurisdiction and therefore dismiss the appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.170(b) (identifying appealable probate and guardianship orders “that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person”) (emphasis added); Allen v. Est. of Hirshberg, 913 So. 2d 1249, 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“The mere granting of a motion to dismiss does not result in a final order or an appealable non-final order. Accordingly, the appeal from the order granting the motion to dismiss the petition to revoke probate is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted).

Appeal dismissed.