DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ARLENE PREUDHOMME,

Appellant,

v.

GARTH BAILEY and CHRISTOPHER S. MATTHEWS, 

Appellees.

No. 4D20-2370

[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. Weinstein and Joshua H. Lida of Twig, Trade, & Tribunal, 

PLLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee Garth Bailey.

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

appellee Christopher Matthews.

PER CURIAM.

Arlene Preudhomme (“Former Wife”) appeals the trial court’s final 

judgment ratifying its previous dismissal with prejudice of her amended 

complaint against Garth Bailey (“Former Husband”). We dismiss Former 

Wife’s appeal as to Former Husband for lack of jurisdiction. Former Wife 

also appeals the same order’s dismissal of her third amended complaint 

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 alleged Former Husband fraudulently conveyed the 

property to multiple 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, the trial court agreed and disposed of the 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 third amended complaint in 2020, the trial court 

dismissed that complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of 

action. Because Former Wife attempted to appeal the nonfinal order, we 

instructed her to obtain a final order of dismissal. In Former Wife’s motion 

before the trial court to obtain that order, she stated her intention to also 

appeal the dismissal with prejudice of her amended complaint against 

Former Husband. The trial court’s final judgment ratified its two previous 

orders that dismissed with prejudice (1) the third amended complaint 

against Matthews and (2) the amended complaint 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 thirty days. Dalola v. Barber, 757 

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

Here, although 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 an 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 Former Husband.

Dismissal with Prejudice as to Matthews

Former Wife argues the trial court improperly dismissed her third 

amended complaint 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 So. 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. However, each time, she failed to sufficiently 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. Furthermore, 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 

proof. 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.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN, and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.