Almacenes El Globo De Quito, S. A. v. Dalbeta L.C.
181 So. 3d 559
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 1996 Dalbeta executed a $215,000 promissory note payable to Almacenes El Globo de Quito, S.A.; monthly payments were due for 30 years at 10% interest.
- Dalbeta made 158 payments through Aug. 2012, many paid directly to Antonio Dalmau (Appellant’s principal shareholder) and later his heirs; from Jan. 2008 some payments were made to Dalbeta itself.
- In May 2012, after Dalmau’s death, Appellant sued Dalbeta for unpaid installments under the note; Dalbeta answered and asserted affirmative defenses and a counterclaim and third-party claim against Dalmau’s heirs alleging the $215,000 was an investment, not a loan.
- Dalbeta’s counterclaim sought a declaration voiding/cancelling the note and alleged unjust enrichment and equitable subrogation claims against the heirs; Dalbeta’s defenses incorporated those counterclaims.
- The trial court severed the claims, tried only Appellant’s promissory-note claim, and on Nov. 17, 2014 entered a judgment declaring the note satisfied and cancelled; Dalbeta’s counterclaim and third-party claim remained pending.
- Appellant appealed; the district court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the order was not a final or properly appealable partial final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nov. 17, 2014 order is a final, appealable judgment | The order captioned “Final Judgment” disposing of the note is appealable | The order is not final because other claims remain unresolved and are intertwined | Not final/appealable; appeal dismissed |
| Whether the order is a reviewable partial final judgment under Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) | The order is a partial final judgment and separable under Rule 9.110(k) | The adjudicated claims are interdependent with remaining counter- and third-party claims | Not a partial final judgment under Rule 9.110(k) because claims arise from same facts |
| Whether any other basis exists for appellate jurisdiction | Appellant relied on precedent (Rob-Cor) to claim separability | Court emphasized Rob-Cor involved demonstrably distinct claims; here claims intertwine | No other basis for jurisdiction; dismissal required |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloomgarden v. Mandel, 154 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (appellate courts have independent duty to assess jurisdiction)
- Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cty., 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (finality requires ending all judicial labor in the case)
- Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (partial final judgment appealability requires separable, independent claims)
- Cicco v. Luckett Tobaccos, Inc., 934 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (same; interdependent claims defeat immediate appeal)
- GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Pruitt, 122 So. 3d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (claims from same facts prevent Rule 9.110(k) appeal)
- Flinn v. Flinn, 68 So. 3d 424 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (partial judgments not appealable when claims are factually intertwined)
- Rob-Cor, Inc. v. Ines, 512 So. 2d 320 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (distinguishable precedent: there claims were demonstrably distinct)