Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal holds that an order denying a motion to vacate a default is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) because it determines liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief. The court denies the motion to dismiss the appeal and distinguishes decisions concerning orders granting motions to vacate defaults. Judge Schwartz dissents, concluding that the order is not within the rule's limited category of appealable non-final orders.
Holdings
- An order denying a motion to vacate a default is appealable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) because it determines liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief.
Questions Presented
- Whether an order denying a motion to vacate a default is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv).
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Caribbean Agencies, Inc. v. Agri-Export, Inc., 384 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)(adopted in part; distinguished by dissent)
- Overholser v. Overstreet, 383 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)(followed)
- Yates v. Roller Skating Rinks, Inc., 379 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)(distinguished)
- Praet v. Martinez, 367 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)(distinguished by majority; followed by dissent)
- Moody v. Moody, 371 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)(questioned by majority; followed by dissent)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…