David A. BRUNO, Appellant,
v.
A.E. HANDY & ASSOCIATES, INC., etc., Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Carol Swanson of Law Offices of Carol Swanson, Orlando, for Appellant.
Christopher C. Cathcart of Ossinsky & Cathcart, P.A., Winter Park, for Appellee.
PLEUS, J.
This case arose when Bruno filed an amended complaint and demand for a jury trial against A.E. Handy & Associates, Inc. for damages for wrongful discharge. Bruno alleged that A.E. Handy & Associates, Inc. wrongfully discharged him from his employment because he had reported to jury duty. During pretrial proceedings, the trial court entered an order allowing A.E. Handy & Associates, Inc.'s attorney to withdraw. In its order, the court stated: "A.E. HANDY & ASSOCIATES, INC., shall have 30 days from the date of this order to retain new counsel." The court later entered an order allowing A.E. Handy & Associates, Inc., 20 days in which to file an answer to Bruno's amended complaint. "DEFENDANT, A.E. HANDY & ASSOCIATES, INC., by undersigned President" filed an answer to Bruno's complaint. Bruno filed a motion for default judgment on the ground that Alfred E. Handy had personally answered the complaint as president of the corporation, which was alleged to be "a legal nullity." Although Bruno did not cite a rule, we conclude that Bruno filed his motion *252 for default judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(b) which provides as follows:
Rule 1.500. Defaults and Final Judgments Thereon
* * *
(b) By the Court. When a party against whom affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules or any applicable statute or any order of the court, the court may enter a default against such party; provided that if such party has filed or served any paper in the action, that party shall be served with notice of the application for default.
[Emphasis supplied]. Following a hearing, the trial court entered an "Order-Default Judgment" against A.E. Handy & Associates, Inc. Although the order is captioned as a default judgment, in reality it was merely a "simple default" entered pursuant to rule 1.500(b), rather than a "default judgment." See Tieche v. Florida Physicians Ins. Reciprocal,
In this case, no final judgment[2] was entered. Rather, the trial court entered a simple default and then an order granting a motion to set aside the default. Thus, the court merely changed its mind with regard to its earlier entry of an interlocutory order. An order setting aside a simple default [whether by the clerk of the court or the judge pursuant to rule 1.500] is not appealable because it is a non-final interlocutory order. See Tieche,
*253 Because Bruno is appealing a non-final interlocutory order, this Court lacks jurisdiction. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
SHARP, W. and PALMER, JJ., concur.
NOTES
Notes
[1] Rule 1.500 Defaults and Final Judgments Thereon
* * *
(d) Setting aside Default. The court may set aside a default, and if a final judgment consequent thereon has been entered, the court may set it aside in accordance with rule 1.540(b).
[2] "Final judgments after default may be entered by the court at any time." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.500(e).
