Case Name: PEDRO REALTY, INC., Appellant, v. Jesus M. SILVA and Olga Silva, his wife, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1981-01-21
Citations: 392 So. 2d 1005
Docket Number: No. 80-2166
Parties: PEDRO REALTY, INC., Appellant, v. Jesus M. SILVA and Olga Silva, his wife, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 392
Pages: 1005–1006

Head Matter:
PEDRO REALTY, INC., Appellant, v. Jesus M. SILVA and Olga Silva, his wife, Appellees.
No. 80-2166.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Jan. 21, 1981.
Manuel Oliver, Hialeah, for appellant.
Irma V. Hernandez and Fernando E. He-ría, Hialeah, for appellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
We are asked to decide whether an order denying a motion to vacate a default is appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). We hold that such an order, because it determines liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief, satisfies the jurisdictional requisites of this rule and is appealable.
We adopt the reasoning found in Judge Hersey's special concurring opinion in Caribbean Agencies, Inc. v. Agri-Export, Inc., 384 So.2d 281 (Fla.4th DCA 1980). We find some further, but slight, support in Overholser v. Overstreet, 383 So.2d 953 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), a case in which we specifically accepted jurisdiction under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv) of an appeal from an order denying a motion to set aside a default, but in which our jurisdiction was apparently not questioned.
We find completely distinguishable cases which hold that an order granting a motion to vacate a default is not appealable, see, e. g., Yates v. Roller Skating Rinks, Inc., 379 So.2d 1333 (Fla.5th DCA 1980); Praet v. Martinez, 367 So.2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1979), since such an order does not determine liability in favor of a party seeking affirmative relief and, therefore, does not activate Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv). We find unpersuasive cases which, without any consideration or discussion of Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), hold that an order denying a motion to vacate a default is not appealable. See, e. g., Moody v. Moody, 371 So.2d 553 (Fla.2d DCA 1979).
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
SCHWARTZ, J., dissents.
. Despite being labeled a concurrence, Judge Hersey's opinion is, in fact, a dissent.
. As Judge Hersey points out, Praet begat Moody, and Moody begat the majority's opinion in Caribbean Agencies. Caribbean Agencies is but a continuation of Moody's misapplication of Praet.