Case ID: so2d_491/html/1300-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM. BASKIN, Judge", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gloria PETERS, Roy Dale Poindexter, and Gail G. Mase, d/b/a Mase & Associates, Realtors, Appellants, v. Manuel J. MENENDEZ, individually, and as Trustee, Appellee.
    No. 86-630.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Aug. 5, 1986.
    Kozyak, Tropin, & Throckmorton, Miami, Istook & Associates, Oklahoma City, Okl., and Marte V. Singerman, Miami, for appellant.
    Weintraub, Weintraub, Seiden, Press & Orshan and George A. Buchmann, Miami, for appellee.
    
      Before HUBBART and BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order entered in favor of the plaintiff Manuel J. Menen-dez on the issue of liability only in an action and counteraction for specific performance and other relief, after a trial thereon, with the issue of damages to be heard at a subsequent trial. We dismiss this appeal upon a holding that (a) the order under review is not a final judgment and is therefore not appealable to this court as a final judgment under Article V, Section 4(b)(1), Florida Constitution, and (b) the order under review is not an appealable non-final order under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), and is therefore not ap-pealable to this court under Article V, Section 4(b)(1), Florida Constitution, based on the controlling and indistinguishable authority of Dauer v. Freed, 444 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).

Appeal dismissed.

BASKIN, Judge

(concurring).

I concur in dismissal. In my view, however, Dauer v. Freed, 444 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), should not be cited as “controlling and indistinguishable.” The Dauer majority based its dismissal of the appeal on a finding that the order appealed did not actually determine liability in favor of the party seeking affirmative relief, Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(a), but was, in reality, a post-judgment denial of renewed motions. It is the concurring opinion in Dauer that justifies today’s dismissal.