Greene v. Borsky, — So.2d —-, 2007 WL 2119215 (Fla. 4th DCA Jul 25, 2007)
Whether a particular type of order is subject to appeal can have a huge impact on how a case is litigated. In this case, the issue was whether a trial court’s order permitting trustees to pay their legal fees with assets of the trust was subject to appeal. The 4th DCA said YES. Thankfully!
Here’s how the 4th DCA explained it’s ruling:
The orders in this case are appealable non-final orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) provides that appealable non-final orders include those that determine “the right to immediate possession of property .” This Court has previously held that a sum of money is property to which Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) can apply. In Florida Discount Properties, Inc. v. Windermere Condominium, Inc., 763 So.2d 1084 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), a lessor filed a motion to have disputed rent paid into the registry of the court. Id. at 1084. The trial court denied the motion, and the lessor appealed. Id. On appeal, this Court concluded that the order was an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), because it determined “the right to immediate possession of property, i.e., the rent payments.” Id. Likewise, in the present case, the trial court orders determined the right to immediate possession of property, here trust assets to be used by trustees to pay for attorney’s fees and witness fees expended in defense of the trust. As such, we conclude that this Court possesses jurisdiction over this appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and affirm in all respects without further comment.
Careful readers of this blog will recognize the name of one of the attorneys on the winning side of the linked-to case: Amy B. Beller of Miller & O’Neill, P.L. (see here for prior post). Well done Amy.