Provitola v. Comer , 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11278 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •           IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    ANTHONY I. PROVITOLA AND
    KATHLEEN A. PROVITOLA,
    Appellants,
    v.                                                         Case No. 5D16-3027
    DENNIS L. COMER,
    Appellee.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed August 4, 2017
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Volusia County,
    Randell H. Rowe, III, Judge.
    Anthony I. Provitola of Anthony I. Provitola,
    P.A., DeLand, for Appellants.
    Lindsay R. Dunn, of First American Law
    Group, Largo, and F. A. (Alex) Ford, Jr., of
    Landis Graham French, P.A., DeLand, for
    Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    We affirm the final order dismissing Appellants’ second amended complaint with
    prejudice. See Bozeman v. City of St. Petersburg, 
    76 So. 894
    , 896 (Fla. 1917) (holding
    that plaintiff could not maintain action to enjoin obstruction of public street where plaintiff’s
    allegations were insufficient to show that he suffered “some special damage to his
    property or injury to him different not only in degree but in kind from the damage sustained
    by the community at large” (quoting Robbins v. White, 
    42 So. 841
     (Fla. 1907))); Wedner
    v. Escambia Chem. Corp., 
    102 So. 2d 631
    , 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) (“The unauthorized
    obstruction of a public way is a common or public nuisance. It is not in itself ground upon
    which to maintain a private suit for injuries occasioned thereby. In order to maintain such
    a suit it must be shown that the party seeking relief has suffered some special injury,
    differing not only in degree, but in kind from that sustained by the community at large.”).
    We dismiss, without prejudice, Appellants’ appeal of the trial court order
    determining that Appellee was entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 57.105,
    Florida Statutes (2016). An order that determines entitlement to attorney’s fees without
    setting the amount is a non-final, non-appealable order. Adlow, Inc. v. Mauda, Inc., 
    632 So. 2d 714
    , 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). 1
    AFFIRMED, in part; DISMISSED, in part.
    EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., and ATKIN, J.E., Associate Judge, concur.
    1  The other issues raised on appeal are rendered moot by our affirmance of the
    trial court’s order of dismissal.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Case 5D16-3027

Citation Numbers: 225 So. 3d 347, 2017 WL 3318008, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11278

Judges: Evander, Edwards, Atkin

Filed Date: 8/4/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024