Singer v. Florida Paving Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Singer v. Florida Paving Co.

469 So. 2d 188, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1271, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14027

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 21, 1985

DocketNos. 84-1902, 84-2435

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 469 So. 2d 188 (Singer v. Florida Paving Co.) 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

Singer v. Florida Paving Co., 469 So. 2d 188, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1271, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14027 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Singer appeals a final judgment awarding Florida Paving Company, Inc. [Florida Paving] damages for breach of contract and an order denying him attorney’s fees. Finding that the judgment and order are not appealable, we do not reach the merits of the trial court’s rulings.

The action below was predicated upon Singer’s failure to pay Florida Paving the total contract price upon which the parties agreed for the installation of a new driveway. Singer filed a compulsory counterclaim, alleging damages resulting from Florida Paving’s improper installation of the driveway. Although the counterclaim was dismissed as untimely, Singer was permitted to maintain an independent action on the claim. Singer v. Florida Paving Co., 459 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (dismissed counterclaim may be refiled as independent action while initial lawsuit pending). That action remains pending.

In Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So.2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we reiterated the pertinent principle:

In determining the finality of an order, judgment, or decree, the test employed by the appellate court is whether the order appealed constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the trial court, and nothing further remains to be done to terminate the dispute between the parties directly affected. S.L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA [189]*1891982). Generally, piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated, involve, in substance, the same transaction, and where the same parties remain in the lawsuit. S.L.T. Warehouse Co.; SCI, Inc.; Collins v. Hunt, 404 So.2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Singer’s claim against Florida Paving and Florida Paving’s claim against Singer are based on “intertwining and interrelated factual and legal issues.” Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority at 814. The pendency of the remaining claim renders the appeals premature. We therefore hold that the judgment and order in question are not appealable.

Appeals dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Singer appeals a final judgment awarding Florida Paving Company, Inc. [Florida Paving] damages for breach of contract and an order denying him attorney’s fees. Finding that the judgment and order are not appealable, we do not reach the merits of the trial court’s rulings.

The action below was predicated upon Singer’s failure to pay Florida Paving the total contract price upon which the parties agreed for the installation of a new driveway. Singer filed a compulsory counterclaim, alleging damages resulting from Florida Paving’s improper installation of the driveway. Although the counterclaim was dismissed as untimely, Singer was permitted to maintain an independent action on the claim. Singer v. Florida Paving Co., 459 So.2d 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (dismissed counterclaim may be refiled as independent action while initial lawsuit pending). That action remains pending.

In Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority v. Metropolitan Dade County, 469 So.2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we reiterated the pertinent principle:

In determining the finality of an order, judgment, or decree, the test employed by the appellate court is whether the order appealed constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the trial court, and nothing further remains to be done to terminate the dispute between the parties directly affected. S.L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); SCI, Inc. v. Aneco Co., 410 So.2d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA [189]*1891982). Generally, piecemeal appeals will not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated, involve, in substance, the same transaction, and where the same parties remain in the lawsuit. S.L.T. Warehouse Co.; SCI, Inc.; Collins v. Hunt, 404 So.2d 375 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

Singer’s claim against Florida Paving and Florida Paving’s claim against Singer are based on “intertwining and interrelated factual and legal issues.” Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Authority at 814. The pendency of the remaining claim renders the appeals premature. We therefore hold that the judgment and order in question are not appealable.

Appeals dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

469 So. 2d 188, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1271, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-v-florida-paving-co-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack