Weiss v. Weiss

317 So.3d 167

Caroline WEISS, Appellant,

v.Adeena WEISS, Appellee.

No. 3D20-843

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed February 3, 2021

Rehearing Denied February 24, 2021

Billbrough & Marks, P.A., and Geoffrey B. Marks, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Torricella Law, PLLC, and Maurice J. Baumgarten, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON, and GORDO, JJ.

HENDON, J.

Caroline Weiss ("Weiss") appeals from an order closing the underlying case, an order denying Weiss's motion to reopen the case, and an order denying Weiss's motion for reconsideration of the order denying her motion to reopen the case. We reverse and remand.

Facts

This is another episode in the longstanding dispute between the mother, Weiss, and her daughter, Adeena Weiss Ortiz ("Ortiz") regarding property of significant value on Biscayne Bay in Coconut Grove. In 1973, Weiss and her husband, Jack, bought bayfront lots in Coconut Grove, numbered 0 through 7 ("the Property") through their corporation, JAAC, Inc. That same year, JAAC executed a warranty deed granting the Property to Weiss and her husband as tenants by the entirety. In 1987, JAAC signed a warranty deed to Central Bank and Trust company, which in turn executed a land trust agreement deed to JAAC. Jack died in 1995; JAAC was administratively dissolved in 1997. Weiss subsequently issued a number of quitclaim deeds, transfers, and corrective documents involving various lots comprising the Property. Ortiz filed an action against Weiss, the Estate of her father, her sister's trust, and other parties who might claim an interest in the Property. Ortiz's Third Amended Complaint, filed in 2016, included two counts: fraudulent transfer of the Property, and an action to quiet her title to the Property. Weiss filed a counterclaim against Ortiz to quiet title and for slander of title.

Weiss sought to discharge the lis pendens filed by Ortiz against the Property. The trial court granted in part and denied in part Weiss's motion to discharge the lis pendens or for imposition of a bond, declined to discharge the lis pendens but ordered Ortiz to post a $3,000,000 bond by a certain date in order to maintain the lis pendens. Ortiz failed to post the required bond, and the lis pendens was discharged. Ortiz then filed a petition for writ of certiorari. This Court found in Weiss's favor, granted Weiss's motion for appellate attorney's fees and remanded to the trial court to fix the amount. Ortiz v. Weiss, 227 So. 3d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Following that, the trial court rendered its November 14, 2018 "Final Judgment as to Plaintiff's Claims" (emphasis added), in which the trial court found against Ortiz and dismissed all counts of Ortiz's third amended complaint, with prejudice. Further, not only did that order reserve jurisdiction to determine Weiss's appellate attorney's fees ordered by this Court, it also reserved jurisdiction to determine liability and damages in Weiss's counterclaim.

Ortiz appealed from that order. Weiss again prevailed and sought appellate attorney's fees in that case, but this Court denied the motion without prejudice to Weiss's right to seek such fees as damages on her outstanding counterclaim for slander of title. Ortiz v. Weiss, 282 So. 3d 949, 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) ("Finding no error in the order and final partial judgment, we affirm.") (emphasis added).

While Ortiz's second appeal was pending, on March 25, 2019, the trial court closed the underlying case as to all parties, although Weiss's counterclaim remained pending below. When Weiss sought to proceed with her counterclaim, she discovered that an order closing the case had been entered. Weiss timely moved to reopen the case, and in an unelaborated order the trial court denied the motion and denied Weiss's motion on rehearing. Weiss's appeal followed.

Standard of Review

The determination of the finality of an order is a pure question of law and is subject to de novo review. M.M. v. Fla. Dep't of Children & Families, 189 So. 3d 134, 137 (Fla. 2016).

Discussion

Ortiz characterizes the November 2018 judgment as "final," and it was – for her as Plaintiff. To be deemed final, "an order must demonstrate an end to the judicial labor." Hoffman v. Hall, 817 So. 2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). "The traditional test for finality is whether the decree disposes of the cause on its merits leaving no questions open for judicial determination except for execution and enforcement, if necessary." Id. The November 2018...