### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ARLENE PREUDHOMME
, Appellant,

v.

GARTH BAILEY and CHRISTOPHER S. MATTHEWS, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 20

- 2370

[ February 23, 2022 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Keathan B. Frink , Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE14

- 4538

.

Arlene Preudhomme, Pembroke Pines, pro se.

Morgan L. Weinste i n and Joshua H. Lida of Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, PLLC, Fo rt Lauderdale

, for appellee Garth Bailey.

Joseph S. Geller of Greenspoon Marder, LLP, Fort Lauderdale

, for appellee Christopher Matthews.

P ER C URIAM

.

Arlene Preudhomme (“Former Wife”) appeals the trial court’s f inal j udgment ratifying its previous dismissal with prejudice of her a mended

c omplaint against Garth Bailey (“Former Husband”)

. We dismiss Former Wife’s appeal as to Former Husband for lack of jurisdiction. Former Wife also appeal s t he same order ’s dismiss al of her t hird a mend ed c omplaint against Christopher Matthews (“Matthews”) with prejudice

. We affirm that

dismissal.

In 2014, Former Wife sued multiple parties to quiet and confirm title to real property

. She alleg ed Former Husband fraudulently conveyed the
property to mul tiple straw purchasers, including Matthews. Former Husband moved to dismiss the complaint

, asserting Former Wife never held title to the property and, therefore, did not have standing to bring the

action. In 2015, t he trial court agreed and disposed of t he case as to Former Husband by dismissing the complaint with prejudice

.2 Former Wife continued to pursue litigation against the other parties

and filed successive amended complaints

. After Matthews moved to

dismiss Former Wife’s t hird a mended c omplaint in 2020, t he trial court

dismiss ed th at complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of

action. Because Former Wife attempted to appeal the nonfinal order

, we instructed her to obtai n a final order of dismissal. In Former Wife’s motion

before the trial court to obtain th at order, she stated her intention to also appeal the dismissal with prejudice of her a mended c omplaint against

Former Husband. The trial court ’s f inal j udgment rati f ied its two previous

orders that dismiss ed with prejudice (1) the t hird a mended c omplaint against Matthews and (2) the a mended c omplaint against Former

Husband. This appeal followed.

Lack of Jurisdiction as to Former Husband

Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k), a final judgment that disposes of a case as to any party is considered a partial final judgment. If a partial final judgment completely disposes of a case as to any party, it is appealable only within th irty days

. Dalola v. Barber , 757 So. 2d 1215, 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) ; see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k)

. Here, a lthough the final judgment reiterated the prior dismissal of Former Husband, Former Wife had only thirty days from the entry of the original

order to appeal

— a window she missed by six years

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k); Del Castillo v. Ralor Pharmacy, Inc. , 512 So. 2d 315, 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ( finding a n order disposing of the action as to one defendant was “reviewable only by timely appeal within 30 days of the order itself”).

Due to her failure to file a timely appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice as to For mer Husband.

Dismissal with Prejudice as to Matthews

Former Wife argues the trial court improperly dismissed her t hird

a mended c omplaint against Matthews with prejudice

. “A trial court’s

determination on a motion to dismiss is reviewed de novo.” Visor v. Buhl

, 760 So. 2d 274, 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). “A proposed amendment is futile if it is insufficiently pled . . . or is ‘insufficient as a matter of law.’” Quality Roof Servs., Inc. v. Intervest Nat’l Bank , 21 S o. 3d 883, 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)

. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b), a pleading must be stated simply in short and plain language. “The Rules of Civil Procedure are adopted to establish an orderly and efficient judicial procedure to

handle cases,” and even a pro se litigant is not exempt from such rules. Thomas v. Pridgen , 549 So. 2d 1195, 1196

– 97 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).3 Here, Former Wife attempted to amend her complaint against Matthews multiple times

. H owever, each time, she failed to suf ficiently plead her complaint because her attachments did not support her claims

. See Haslett v. Broward Health Imperial Point Med. Ctr. , 197 So. 3d 124, 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) ( “Where the exhibits negate the cause of action asserted, they must control.” ) ; see also Quality Roof Servs. , 21 So. 3d at

885

. Further more , she did not state her claims in the simple, short, and plain language required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.110(b)

. Even though Former Wife represented herself in the proceedings below, she was still required by court rules to state her claim succinctly and with sufficient

proo f. See Thomas , 549 So. 2d at 1196

- 97. Her repeated failure to do so properly led to the dismissal of her complaint against Matthews with prejudice

.

Affirmed in part and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction in part.

D AMOORGIAN
, C IKLIN
, and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.