Pauls v. Blank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pauls v. Blank

13 So. 3d 182, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7693, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1245

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 17, 2009

Docket1D09-1232

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 13 So. 3d 182 (Pauls v. Blank) 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

Pauls v. Blank, 13 So. 3d 182, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7693, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1245 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMAS, J.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s response to the court’s order of March 24, 2009, the court has determined that Counts I and II of the Third Amended Complaint seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief related to the easement, and Counts III and IV seeking damages for interference with the same easement, are inextricably intertwined. See Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.”) (quoting S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974)). Regardless of the legal or equitable nature of the claims, the order on appeal is not an appealable order because there is a “factual overlap between the claim resolved by the order and a pending claim.” Id. at 1220. Therefore, the November 25, 2008, Final Judgment, which addresses only Counts I and II, does not constitute a partial final judgment subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed as premature.

DISMISSED.

ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

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

THOMAS, J.

Upon consideration of Appellant’s response to the court’s order of March 24, 2009, the court has determined that Counts I and II of the Third Amended Complaint seeking declaratory and in-junctive relief related to the easement, and Counts III and IV seeking damages for interference with the same easement, are inextricably intertwined. See Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“Piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are interrelated and involve the same transaction and the same parties remain in the suit.”) (quoting S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974)). Regardless of the legal or equitable nature of the claims, the order on appeal is not an appealable order because there is a “factual overlap between the claim resolved by the order and a pending claim.” Id. at 1220. Therefore, the November 25, 2008, Final Judgment, which addresses only Counts I and II, does not constitute a partial final judgment subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed as premature.

DISMISSED.

ALLEN and DAVIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 So. 3d 182, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 7693, 34 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pauls-v-blank-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack