GOULD v. FAIRWINDS MOTEL INC (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.2021-10-13No. No. 4D20-2595

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the final judgment on the arbitration decision and dismissed the appeal regarding the order denying relief from judgment, because appellant raised no substantive challenge to the final judgment and the relief order was not a final, appealable order.

Appellant appealed a final judgment arising from an arbitration decision after failing to timely request a trial de novo. The following day, appellant sought relief from the judgment under the civil rules, claiming his attorney's calendaring system malfunctioned and prevented the timely request. The trial court scheduled an evidentiary hearing on the relief motion and denied it without prejudice, permitting appellant to file an amended motion.

Appellant then filed a notice of appeal challenging the final arbitration judgment. On appeal, appellant raised no issues regarding the merits of that judgment itself. Additionally, appellant did not designate the order denying relief in the notice of appeal, and that order was nonfinal and nonappealable because it was denied without prejudice.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether appellant preserved the right to appeal the final arbitration judgment
Whether an order denying a motion for relief without prejudice is appealable
Failure to request trial de novo in arbitration proceedings

Procedural posture

Appellant appealed a final judgment entered on an arbitration decision and an order denying a motion for relief from that judgment.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

This is an appeal of a final judgment entered on an arbitration decision in favor of appellee after appellant failed to request a trial de novo, pursuant to section 44.103(5), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.820(h). The day after the judgment was entered, appellant filed a motion for relief of judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Appellants counsel claimed that he failed to request the trial de novo because of technical issues with his calendaring system. After a hearing, the trial court determined that an evidentiary hearing was necessary. The court denied the rule 1.540(b) motion without prejudice, allowing appellant to file an amended motion and to then set the matter for an evidentiary hearing. Nevertheless, appellant filed a notice of appeal, appealing the final judgment.

Appellant has not raised any issue with respect to the final judgment in this appeal. Therefore, we affirm. As to appellants arguments made regarding the denial of the motion for relief, not only was that order not designated in the notice of appeal as an order sought to be appealed, but also the order denied the motion for relief without prejudice, making it a nonfinal, non-appealable order. See Palamara v. Chinnock Marine, Inc., 788 So. 2d 305, 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We therefore dismiss the appeal as to the order denying the motion for relief.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

Per Curiam.

Warner, Gerber and Artau, JJ., concur.