Case Name: Michael Scott CLEMENT, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Eileen A. Clement, and Eileen A. Clement, individually, Appellants, v. AZTEC SALES, INC., et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1973-06-06
Citations: 283 So. 2d 68
Docket Number: No. 73-227
Parties: Michael Scott CLEMENT, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Eileen A. Clement, and Eileen A. Clement, individually, Appellants, v. AZTEC SALES, INC., et al., Appellees.
Judges: CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 283
Pages: 68–73

Head Matter:
Michael Scott CLEMENT, a minor, by and through his mother and next friend, Eileen A. Clement, and Eileen A. Clement, individually, Appellants, v. AZTEC SALES, INC., et al., Appellees.
No. 73-227.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 6, 1973.
Rehearing Denied July 31, 1973.
Robert Orseck of Podhurst, Orseck & Parks, and Preddy, Haddad, Kutner & Hardy, Miami, for appellants.
Frank E. Maloney, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee-American National Bank Building.
Douglas M. Carlton, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees-Aztec Sales, Inc., and Mac-cari Building and Construction Corp.

Opinion:
WALDEN, Judge.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
We are squarely faced with an assault upon the validity of F.S. 59.04, F.S.A., Laws of 1971, which provides:
"59.04 Appeal from order granting new trial.' — Upon the entry of an order granting a new trial, the party aggrieved may prosecute an appeal to the proper appellate court without waiting for final judgment. If the judgment is reversed, the appellate court may direct that final judgment [be entered in the trial court for the party obtaining the verdict unless a motion in arrest of judgment or for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict be made and prevail]."
Plaintiffs, being aggrieved, brought this appeal from a trial court order which granted a new trial to defendants upon the question of liability. The defendants have moved to dismiss, saying that the statute allowing such an appeal has been superseded and invalidated.
Several things are clear :
A. This order and appeal coming prior to final judgment is necessarily an interlocutory appeal.
B. Rule 4.2(a), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., promulgated by the Supreme Court of Florida, specifies and limits the matters that may be reviewed by interlocutory appeal:
"Rule 4.2 Interlocutory Appeals
"a. Application. Appeals may be prosecuted in accordance with this rule from interlocutory orders in civil actions that, from the subject matter or relief sought, are such as formerly were cognizable in equity, from interlocutory orders relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person and from orders granting partial summary judgment on liability in civil actions and from decisions, orders or judgments entered in civil actions after final judgment, except those relating to motions for new trial, rehearing or reconsideration and from orders granting or denying motions to vacate defaults and from orders granting or denying dismissal for lack of prosecution. Nothing in this rule shall preclude the review of an interlocutory order in a civil action on appeal from the final judgment as otherwise authorized by these rules. This rule shall not be construed as limiting or affecting the power of the district courts of appeal or the circuit courts in reviewing any appropriate interlocutory order by common law certiorari. As amended effective Oct. 1, 1968 (211 So.2d 198); Sept. 30, 1970 (237 So.2d 138)." (Emphasis supplied.)
C. Rule 4.2, F.A.R., supra, specifically disallows and disqualifies interlocutory appeals from orders granting a new trial.
D. Common law certiorari is not an appropriate vehicle to review the order, and such has not been sought, mentioned, or suggested.
E. Article V, § 2(a), of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A., vests the Supreme Court with rule making power, saying:
"(a) The supreme court shall adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts including the time for seeking appellate review, the administrative supervision of all courts, the transfer to the court having jurisdiction of any proceeding when the jurisdiction of another court has been improvidently invoked, and a requirement that no cause shall be dismissed because an improper remedy has been sought. These rules may be repealed by general law enacted by two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the legislature."
F. Rule 1.4, F.A.R., provides:
". . . From their effective date as to proceedings commenced after September 30, 1962, these rules shall supersede all conflicting rules and statutes. All statutes not superseded hereby or in conflict herewith shall remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Supreme Court."
See also Fort v. Fort, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 69 and Farrell v. Bendix Corp., Fla.App.1970, 232 So.2d 419.
From the foregoing it is our view that the statute is basically an appellate rule; it conflicts with Rule 4.2, F.A.R., in that it disregards the limitations found in the rule and adds another matter as a proper subject of interlocutory appeal; and the appellate rules take precedence and nullify such statutes.
Not only do we feel the result we reach is required iron clad, according to our understanding of the law, we feel that it is highly desirable for clarity, convenience, elimination of conflict, and best results, that the centralization of such power not be compromised even slightly. We wish no return to the division of such power between the legislative and judicial and the times past when it was necessary to search both the rule book and the statutes in order to determine procedure.
And what is the appellants' position? They deny the conflict and remind with considerable force that in 1971 the Supreme Court of Florida approved an interlocutory appeal of an order for new trial on the issue of liability under the statute, and discussed it in some detail, the case being Marley v. Saunders, Fla.1971, 249 So.2d 30. We have, indeed, examined this opinion with close and respectful care. We are unable to find that the validity of the statute was there challenged or considered. Hence, we do not believe that it forecloses the decision we here reach. Furthermore, we have neither been shown nor found any other case or authority dis-positive of the specific question.
We record that, even with the dismissal we now command, the rights of the parties will ultimately be made subject or available for appellate review upon entry of final judgment and full appeal.
Now concluding, it is our opinion that the provisions of F.S. 59.04, F.S.A., supra, are salutary and it is our respectful recommendation that Rule 4.2, F.A.R., be amended to allow interlocutory appeals from orders granting new trials in whole or in part.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
Dismissed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.