You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Rogers v. Salem Leasing Corp.

Citations: 881 So. 2d 728; 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 13642; 2004 WL 2047543Docket: No. 1D04-2794

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 15, 2004; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

On July 2, 2004, the Court ordered the appellants to demonstrate why their appeal should not be dismissed as premature. The appellants' Motion to File Response to this order out of time was granted, with their response accepted as timely filed on July 16, 2004. After reviewing the response, the Court determined that the order being appealed only granted motions to enforce a settlement agreement, which is classified as non-final. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Additionally, the appellants' motion for an extension of time to file briefs, submitted on August 18, 2004, was denied. Judges Browning, Lewis, and Polston concurred with the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Extension for Filing Briefs

Application: The court denied the appellants' request for more time to file their briefs, reflecting strict adherence to procedural deadlines.

Reasoning: Additionally, the appellants' motion for an extension of time to file briefs, submitted on August 18, 2004, was denied.

Jurisdiction Over Non-Final Orders

Application: The court dismissed the appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, emphasizing that the order was non-final as it merely enforced a settlement agreement.

Reasoning: After reviewing the response, the Court determined that the order being appealed only granted motions to enforce a settlement agreement, which is classified as non-final.

Prematurity of Appeal

Application: The court assessed whether the appeal was premature, focusing on the nature of the order being appealed.

Reasoning: On July 2, 2004, the Court ordered the appellants to demonstrate why their appeal should not be dismissed as premature.

Timeliness of Filing

Application: The appellants' motion to file a response out of time was accepted, illustrating the court's discretion in matters of procedural timing.

Reasoning: The appellants' Motion to File Response to this order out of time was granted, with their response accepted as timely filed on July 16, 2004.