Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

December 8, 2017 by admin

Appeals — Jurisdiction — Court lacks jurisdiction over appeal from order dismissing counterclaims where dismissed counts are intertwined with pending counterclaims and were also compulsory counterclaims to original action

42
Fla. L. Weekly D2581aTop of Form

Appeals
— Jurisdiction — Court lacks jurisdiction over appeal from order dismissing
counterclaims where dismissed counts are intertwined with pending counterclaims
and were also compulsory counterclaims to original action

PAUL J. POLITO, an individual,
Appellant, v. KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellee. 4th District. Case No. 4D17-1322.
December 6, 2017. Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit, Broward County; Jack B. Tuter, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE-13-010294(5).
Counsel: Robert W. Murphy, Fort Lauderdale, and Rebecca J. Covey of Rebecca J.
Covey, LLC, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant. Susan E. Trench, Alan G. Kipnis and
Steven M. Appelbaum of Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Miami, for appellee.

(GROSS, J.) We sua sponte dismiss
this appeal of two counts of a counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. The
dismissed counts intertwine with pending pleaded claims and are compulsory
counterclaims to the original action.

This litigation began when appellee
KeyBank National Association sued appellant Paul Polito, seeking a deficiency
judgment of $34,932, the debt remaining after Polito’s default on a boat loan,
followed by the repossession and sale of the boat. A two-count second amended
complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment,
contending that Ohio law applied to actions arising under the loan agreement.

Polito answered and counterclaimed
for damages, seeking class action relief for deceptive acts concerning the
repossession and sale of consumers’ boats. The counterclaim had five counts:

 
Claim
Basis for Claim
Count I
Violation of § 9-610, UCC
(§ 1309.610, Ohio Revised Code)
KeyBank deprived Borrower and
other class members of substantial rights granted to them under the UCC,
including, but not limited to, the right to obtain a reasonable notification
of disposition that properly discloses their rights upon repossession.
Unlawful repossession of the boat
(breach of the peace)1
Count II
Violation of § 9-611, UCC
(§ 1309.611, Ohio Revised Code)
KeyBank failed to provide
reasonable notice of disposition of collateral.
Defective notice of sale
(inadequate notice)
Count III
Violation of § 9-612, UCC
(§ 1309.612, Ohio Revised Code)
KeyBank failed to provide
reasonable notice of disposition of collateral.
Defective notice of sale
(timeliness of notice)
Count IV
Equitable Relief (Common Law)
KeyBank wrongfully collected
and/or reported credit information to the CRAs with respect to the consumer
reports of Borrower and other class members.
Unlawful collection activities and
credit reporting (reporting derogatory information to consumer reporting
agencies)
Count V
Equitable Relief (UCC)
KeyBank wrongfully collected
and/or reported credit information to the CRAs with respect to the consumer
reports of Borrower and other class members.
Unlawful collection activities and
credit reporting (reporting derogatory information to consumer reporting
agencies)

KeyBank moved for summary judgment
on counts II and III of the counterclaim, arguing that the notice of sale
comported with Ohio law. The circuit court granted KeyBank’s motion and entered
a partial final judgment in favor of KeyBank on counts II and III of the
counterclaim.

The jurisdictional problem with this
appeal is that the two dismissed counts are not now appealable. “An appeal from
an order dismissing a count of a complaint, where other counts against the same
parties remain, is authorized only when the dismissed count arises from a
separate and distinct transaction independent of the other pending, pleaded
claims.” Biasetti v. Palm Beach Blood Bank, Inc., 654 So. 2d 237, 238
(Fla. 4th DCA 1995); see also Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). “[P]iecemeal
appeals should not be permitted where claims are legally interrelated and in
substance involve the same transaction.” Mendez v. West Flagler Family
Ass’n, Inc.
, 303 So. 2d 1, 5 (Fla. 1974). “Only when it is obvious that a
separate and distinct cause of action is pleaded which is not interdependent
with other pleaded claims should the appeal be permitted.” Biasetti, 654
So. 2d at 238 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

An
analysis of “interdependence” requires the court to look primarily to the facts
upon which the claims are based. If the claims arise out of the same incident,
the order dismissing some, but not all, of the counts will not constitute a final
appeal, even if the counts involve separate and severable legal theories.

Id.

Here, the dismissed counts are
interdependent with the remaining causes of action in the counterclaim.
Defective notices of sale form at least a partial basis for the relief sought
in the other counts.

Also, insofar as Polito would be a
class representative on the counterclaim, counts II and III of the counterclaim
arose out of the seizure and sale of his boat, so they arose “out of the
transaction or occurrence that formed the subject matter of the plaintiff’s
claim.” Londano v. Turkey Creek, Inc., 609 So. 2d 14, 19 (Fla. 1992).
This means that the two counts were compulsory counterclaims. This court does
not have jurisdiction because an order dismissing a compulsory counterclaim is
“not appealable until a final disposition of the original cause has [been]
obtained on the merits.” 4040 Ibis Circle, LLC v. JP Morgan Chase Bank,
193 So. 3d 957, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (quoting Johnson v. Allen, Knudsen,
DeBoest, Edwards & Rhodes, P.A.
, 621 So. 2d 507, 509 (Fla. 2d DCA
1993)).

Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.)

__________________

1Although
not explicitly mentioned within this specific count, it appears that this count
was based on the unlawful repossession of Polito’s boat, which he contends was
a breach of the peace.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982