TP ORLANDO 504 V. SEYMOUR, ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida, January Term, A.D. 2011 Opinion filed March 30, 2011. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D10-1946 Lower Tribunal No. 08-44793 ________________ TP Orlando 504, LLC Appellant, vs. Seymour International, Inc. and Roth, Rousso, Katzman, LLP, Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge. Serber & Associates, and Alexandra J. Sanchez, and Sabrina Smulevich, for appellant. Katzman Garfinkel & Berger, and Scott D. Newsom (Maitland), for appellees. Before GERSTEN, SALTER, and EMAS, JJ. EMAS, J. Appellant, the plaintiff below, seeks review of an order denying its motion for partial final summary judgment on one count of its six-count complaint. That count alleged that appellee, Seymour International, Inc., violated the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act, 15 U.S.C. ยงยง 1701-1720. The order denying appellant s motion for summary judgment is a non-final order. Nat l Assur. Underwriters, Inc. v. Kelley, 702 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Appeals of non-final orders are strictly limited to those specifically listed in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). An order denying summary judgment is not appealable pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(3), and this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.1 Id. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 1 Rule 9.130(a)(3) does permit appeals of a non-final order which, for example, concerns venue; grants, denies, or modifies injunctive relief; or determines the right to immediate possession of property. The instant order contains no findings or conclusions, other than its one-word ruling that the motion is denied. Appellant has failed to provide a transcript of the hearing on the motion. In the absence of an adequate record, we are unable to determine the basis for the trial court s ruling and therefore, are unable to determine whether the trial court s order made findings or determinations that would provide this court with jurisdiction under the limited scope of Rule 9.130(a)(3). See e.g., Barber v. Wonderland Greyhound Park, 656 So. 2d 961 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (holding appellate court did not have jurisdiction to review non-final order under 9.130(a)(3)(B) where record failed to establish that trial court had considered whether injunctive relief should be granted). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
