You are on page 1of 5

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR WALTON COUNTY, FLORIDA

JOHN P. CARROLL Plaintiff, v. WATERSOUND BEACH COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., WATERCOLOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., SANDRA MATTESON, DAVID LILIENTHAL, MARY JOULE, RONALD VOELKER, JOHN DOE, JANE) DOE and OTHER UNKNOWN CONSPIRATORS Defendants/Appellees. ____________________________/

2009 CA 002021

MOTIO TO AME D or SUPPLEME T FI AL ORDERS Comes now the Plaintiff, who moves for the entry of an Amended Final Order to perfect the Orders of this court rendered by the Honorable David W. Green dated June 30, 2011 and filed with the Clerk of Courts for Walton County on June 30, 2011. The natures of the Orders are Final Orders Granting Defendants Watercolor Community Association, Inc., David Lilienthal, Sandra Matteson and Mary Joules Motions for Final Summary Judgment and states: 1. Carroll has appealed the lower tribunals Orders Granting

Final Summary Judgment in Full in Favor of Defendants David Lilienthal,

Sandra Matteson, Mary Joule and Watercolor. The appeal was dismissed by the 1st DCA on grounds that Final Orders were not perfected. 2. Carroll objected to the preparation of those Orders by the

respective Counsel for the Defendants, because there were no conclusions of fact or law made by the lower tribunal. It was Carrolls position that the Defendants Counsel couldnt possibly prepare Orders sufficient for meaningful appellate review. 3. The lower tribunal overruled Carrolls objection, and entered The Orders contain no

those Orders as presented on June 30, 2011. conclusions. 4.

Those Orders disposed of the entire case as to those parties and Those

created impending appellate jurisdiction pursuant Rule 9.110(k).

parties were removed from the litigation entirely and were relieved from appearing at trial. 5. After rendition, it became very evident that the lower tribunal

had succumbed to error, or fraud, or inadvertence or misapplication of the law in reaching its decision. On July 8, 2011, Carroll timely filed a Motion for Rehearing, Motion for Reconsideration, Motion to Vacate and Motion for Clarification of the Courts Orders Granting Summary Judgment on the newly discovered evidence and apparent error.

6.

The lower tribunal entered an Order denying Carrolls Motion

for Rehearing on August 5, 2011. 7. At that point the issues pertaining to Lilienthal, Joule, Matteson Under the Florida

and Watercolor became ripe for appellate review.

Constitution, Article V, section 4(b)(1), the "district courts have jurisdiction to hear plenary appeals, as a matter of right, only from final judgments and orders of the trial courts." Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla. 2002). Generally, an order is final and a plenary appeal may be taken when "the order ... constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court... between the parties directly affected." See S.L.T. Warehouse Co, v.Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla. 1974); (reaffirming the traditional test for finality requiring that "no further action by the court will be necessary"); McGurn v. Scott, 596 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 1992) (stating "[i]t is well settled that a judgment attains the degree of finality necessary to support an appeal when it adjudicates the merits of the cause and disposes of the action between the parties, leaving no judicial labor to be done except the execution of the judgment"). However, a partial final judgment is appealable as a final order when "the judgment ... adjudicates a distinct and severable cause of action, not interrelated with

remaining claims pending in the trial court." S.L.T. Warehouse, 304 So.2d at 99; Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). 8. Earlier in the proceedings, the Court rendered (3) Orders in

Favor of the parties who have now been completely removed from the litigation. Those were: a) Denying Carrolls Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint Adding a Claim Seeking Punitive Damages with Supporting Memorandum of Law and Proffer of Evidence (Exhibit I); b) Denying Carrolls Motion for Leave to Add Parties (Exhibit I); c) Granting Defendants Motions to Dismiss (Exhibit J); 9. appealable. Rule 9.130 enumerates the types of non-final orders that are Rule 9.130 does not provide for an appeal of the orders

described in Paragraph 8. As such, those Orders were not appealable until those parties were completely removed from the litigation. Those issues have now ripened for appeal. 10. Plaintiff will complete the appeal upon entrance of the Final

Orders and continue to pursue the lawful disposal of this case thereafter at trial.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter the Final Orders, including a statement of the facts and conclusions of law, so that the Appellate Justices can analyze and render a decision on their findings.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Christopher L. George, Esq., and to Mark D. Davis, Esq., and to Gary Shipman, Esq., electronically this 23rd day of January, 2012. _____________________________ John Carroll Box 613524 WaterSound, FL 32461 (850) 231-5616 - phone (850) 622-5618- fax

You might also like