LISONEL PEREZ v. PEDRO A. JAIMOT AND MARILYN JAIMOT ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •       Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed August 11, 2021.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D21-1302
    Lower Tribunal No. 17-4334
    ________________
    Lisonel Perez,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Pedro A. Jaimot and Marilyn Jaimot,
    Appellees.
    An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles K.
    Johnson, Judge.
    Marrero, Chamizo, Marcer Law, LP and Julio C. Marrero, for appellant.
    Bales Sommers & Klein, P.A. and Jason Klein and Richard M. Bales,
    Jr., for appellees.
    Before MILLER, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.
    ON MOTION TO DISMISS
    MILLER, J.
    Through this appeal, appellant, Lisonel Perez, seeks review of a
    nonfinal order scheduling the sale of property ordered partitioned pursuant
    to a final judgment executed nearly eighteen months ago. Appellees, Pedro
    and Marilyn Jaimot, urge dismissal, contending this appeal is essentially an
    untimely challenge to that judgment, and no other means of review are
    available. Concluding we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
    This is the third time this dispute has been before us for review. In the
    early part of 2020, the lower tribunal rendered a summary final judgment on
    a multi-count complaint and counterclaim, finding appellant and appellees
    each owned a fifty percent undivided interest as tenants in common in certain
    indivisible real property located in Homestead, Florida. The court awarded
    monetary damages in favor of appellees and against appellant and ordered
    partition by sale, appointing a special magistrate to sell the property. The
    magistrate was empowered to elect between conducting a private sale or
    public auction, as provided in section 64.071, Florida Statutes. Appellant
    timely appealed the judgment, but we dismissed the appeal for failure to
    prosecute.
    A second appeal, challenging an order requiring cooperation with the
    special magistrate in effectuating the sale, followed on the heels of the first.
    2
    The appeal was ostensibly abandoned, as it suffered the same fate as the
    first. The lower court then scheduled a date for public auction, pursuant to
    the provisions of section 45.031, Florida Statutes, and the instant appeal
    ensued.
    A well-developed body of precedent holds that an order of partition is
    final at such time as the court directs the sale of the property. 1 See Camp
    Phosphate Co. v. Anderson, 
    37 So. 722
    , 726 (Fla. 1904) (holding that a
    decree which decides the right of the property at issue is considered final
    when an order directs the sale of land “and the complainant is entitled to
    have such decree carried immediately into execution”) (citation omitted);
    Lovett v. Lovett, 
    112 So. 768
    , 783 (Fla. 1927) (“The final decree in the
    present case is a decree of the court dated September 30, 1925, confirming
    the report of the commissioners that there could be no partition, ordering a
    sale of the lands, and appointing commissioners to make such sale.”); Morris
    v. Garcia, 
    185 So. 3d 678
    , 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[W]e conclude the
    partition order will not become final until such time as the court directs the
    sale of the property.”) (citations omitted).
    Here, the contested order merely fixed a sale date. The previously
    appealed final judgment, however, already ordered partition, assigned the
    1
    See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110.
    3
    title and interests of the parties in the disputed property, and directed the
    special magistrate to sell the property. Hence, adhering to our precedent,
    we conclude the prior decree was final, rendering it ripe for appellate review.
    As Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b) requires the filing of
    a notice of appeal within thirty days of the rendition of a final order and the
    earlier appeals were long abandoned, it is axiomatic this proceeding cannot
    be used as a vehicle for reviving the appellate rights exercised in the earlier
    related appeals. See Campos v. Campos, 
    230 So. 3d 553
    , 555 (Fla. 1st
    DCA 2017) (“[F]ormer husband could have appealed the July 20, 2016 order
    denying reunification if he had done so timely; but the trial court's repeating
    the same ruling in the later order denying the motion to vacate cannot revive
    an appeal period.”) (citation omitted); Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 
    980 So. 2d 1226
    , 1229 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (“An untimely appeal cannot be
    revived by obtaining a new order to the same effect as the original and then
    filing the notice of appeal within thirty days of the more recent order.”)
    (citations omitted); Gen. Motors Corp. v. Strickland, 
    913 So. 2d 1227
    , 1228
    (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (dismissing appeal where “Final Judgment for Attorney
    Fees and Costs was a mere republication of the earlier order and did not
    restart the time for filing an appeal”) (citation omitted).
    4
    Finally, we find no alternative mechanism for review. We have held
    that an order scheduling a judicial sale date is “a purely administrative,
    interlocutory step in the judicial sales process,” thus neither constitutes an
    “appealable, non-final order under rule 9.130” nor rises to the level of
    irreparable harm required to establish the jurisdictional threshold in certiorari.
    Venezia v. Wells Fargo Bank, 
    258 So. 3d 539
    , 541 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
    (quoting Pridgen v. First Union Bank, 
    879 So. 2d 21
    , 21 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)).
    Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.
    Appeal dismissed.
    5