From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Massachusetts Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jan 17, 2006
918 So. 2d 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Summary

holding pending claims are interrelated and the order is not immediately appealable partial final judgment even if different legal theories or additional facts are involved in the separate counts

Summary of this case from Daniel v. Woodcock

Opinion

No. 1D05-5135.

January 17, 2006.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Alachua County, Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., J.

Lorence Jon Bielby, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Tallahassee; Elliot B. Kula and Benjamin L. Reiss, Greenberg Traurig, Miami, for Appellants.

Elizabeth Waratuke, Office of City Attorney, Gainesville; Mark T. Aliff, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee; William E. Harlan, Office of County Attorney, Gainesville, for Appellees.


In this appeal, filed by Massachusetts Life Insurance Company and Florida Conference Center Associates, Inc., the appellants seek review of an Order Dismissing Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint with Prejudice, entered on October 4, 2005. This is not an appealable partial final judgment under rule 9.110(k), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. "The test to determine whether counts of a multicount complaint are interrelated, so as to preclude a piecemeal appeal, is whether the counts arise from a set of common facts or a single transaction, not whether different legal theories or additional facts are involved in separate counts." Lemon v. Groninger, 708 So.2d 1025, 1027 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). The "analysis in each case hinges on whether there is a factual and legal overlap between claims." Northcutt v. Pathway Financial, 555 So.2d 368, 369 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The dismissed Count III of the complaint asserted equitable estoppel to avoid ad valorem taxes on the improvements on certain property. Similarly, Counts I and II raised constitutional challenges to the same ad valorem taxes on the same property. Count IV sought a continuing injunction against the imposition of ad valorem taxes on the same property in the future. Because the remaining claims overlap and are interrelated with the claim disposed of by the order on appeal, this appeal is premature.

DISMISSED.

ERVIN, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Massachusetts Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jan 17, 2006
918 So. 2d 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

holding pending claims are interrelated and the order is not immediately appealable partial final judgment even if different legal theories or additional facts are involved in the separate counts

Summary of this case from Daniel v. Woodcock

concluding that the appeal was premature because it was "not an appealable partial final judgment under [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.110(k)"

Summary of this case from PUIG v. SEMINOLE NIGHT CLUB

dismissing appeal as premature where “remaining claims overlap and are interrelated with the claim disposed of by the order on appeal”

Summary of this case from Robles v. Baptist Health S. Fla., Inc.

dismissing appeal of order that disposed of one of several interrelated claims

Summary of this case from Christopher v. Christopher

providing test to determine whether order is appealable as a partial final judgment

Summary of this case from Dunlap v. G L Holding Group, Inc.
Case details for

Massachusetts Life Ins. Co. v. Crapo

Case Details

Full title:MASSACHUSETTS LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Florida Conference Center…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jan 17, 2006

Citations

918 So. 2d 393 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

Citing Cases

Robles v. Baptist Health S. Fla., Inc.

Because the claims are interrelated and Count III remains pending dismissal of the appeal is proper as the…

PUIG v. SEMINOLE NIGHT CLUB

See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3).Harrison v. J.P.A. Enters., L.L.C., 51 So.3d 1217, 1219 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.…