The end of judicial labor

FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY

VOLUME 50 NUMBER 48

CASES FROM THE WEEK OF DECEMBER 5, 2025

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT IS A NONFINAL IS A NONAPPEALABLE ORDER

TNTIEN v. Mendez, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2528 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 26, 2025):

The trial court entered a judicial default following the defendant’s failure to respond to a complaint.

Because an order entering a judicial default does not put an end to the judicial labor in a case, it is not a final appealable order.

It is not a “non-final” appealable order either, because Rule 9.130(a)(3) does not include it on the list of “appealable” nonfinal orders.

Thus, the order is neither a final nor a non-final appealable order, and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction, necessitating dismissal of the appeal.

APPELLATE COURT STILL HAD JURISDICTION EVEN THOUGH APPELLANT FAILED TO ATTACH THE FINAL ORDER TO THE NOTICE OF APPEAL (ATTACHING THE MOTION FOR REHEARING ONLY)

Team Response Restoration Corp. v. Citizens Property Insurance Corp., 50 Fla. L. Weekly D2537 (Fla. 3d DCA Nov. 26, 2025):

The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order denying its motion for rehearing and reconsideration of the defendant’s motion for final summary judgment. However, while the plaintiff included in its notice the order itself denying the rehearing, it failed to include the actual final order to which the motion for rehearing was directed. Such an order is not independently appealable.

In considering the defendant/appellee’s motion to dismiss, the court again applied the “end of judicial labor test.” In other words, the court asked whether the order in question constituted an end to the judicial labor in the cause, leaving nothing further to be done by the court to effectuate a termination between the parties directly affected.  The court noted that the title of the order, judgment, or decree is not controlling.

Here, the final order was ripe for appellate review.  The trial court granted summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, which resolved all the merits in the case, and ended the judicial labor.

While the appellant improperly attached the nonfinal non-appealable order denying rehearing and did not attach the final order, the court determined that it did not have to dismiss the entire appeal and still had jurisdiction to consider it, because the notice gave sufficient information from which it could be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty which order was being appealed.

Because the motion for reconsideration/rehearing was timely and the notice of appeal was filed timely, the appellant’s failure to attach the final order was not fatal to invoking the court’s jurisdiction.