Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the appellant, Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., sought to challenge a trial court order dated June 9, 1986, which awarded damages of $100,550 to the appellee, Jed Bandes. The appeal was initially dismissed as the order was deemed final under Florida appellate rules, with only the determination of taxable costs and prejudgment interest remaining. Prudential-Bache's motion for rehearing was filed late, causing it to be ineffective against the June 9 order. An August 18, 1986 trial court order mistakenly declared the June 9 order 'non-final,' but the appellate court rejected this, identifying the order as a nullity. Consequently, the appeal was restricted to the issue of costs and interest, while attempts to raise questions about the arbitrator’s impartiality were dismissed as untimely. The appellate court also struck Prudential-Bache's brief for failing to address the limited issues allowed in the appeal. The court's decision was supported by Judges Scheb and Hall, affirming the finality of the June 9, 1986 order and allowing the appeal to proceed only on specific issues related to costs and prejudgment interest.
Legal Issues Addressed
Finality of Judicial Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed that the June 9, 1986 order was final and terminated all substantive judicial activities, despite the pending determination of costs and prejudgment interest.
Reasoning: The court denied this request, affirming that the June 9 order was final under Florida appellate rules and terminated all substantive judicial activities, only leaving the determination of taxable costs and prejudgment interest.
Jurisdictional Reservation for Costssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The reservation of jurisdiction for costs does not affect the finality of an order, as evidenced by the June 9 order remaining final despite pending cost determinations.
Reasoning: The court noted that the reservation of jurisdiction for costs does not affect the order’s finality.
Nullity of Incorrect Judicial Declarationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court declared the August 18, 1986 trial court's order, which incorrectly labeled the June 9 order as 'non-final,' as a nullity.
Reasoning: The appellate court disagreed, labeling the August 18 order a nullity.
Scope of Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was limited to issues regarding costs and prejudgment interest due to the finality of the June 9 order.
Reasoning: The appeal may continue only regarding the taxation of costs and prejudgment interest.
Timeliness of Motions for Rehearingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Prudential-Bache's motion for rehearing was deemed untimely as it was filed one day late, rendering it ineffective against the June 9 order.
Reasoning: Prudential-Bache was required to file a motion for rehearing by June 19, 1986, but did not do so until June 20, which was deemed untimely and ineffective against the June 9 order.