Brianna Beck v. James Wright Individually and as Trustee of the Kathryn v. Montagnino Trust
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledOctober 28, 2022
Docket2D22-0527
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
BRIANNA BECK,
Appellant,
v.
JAMES WRIGHT, individually and as trustee of the
KATHRYN V. MONTAGNINO TRUST,
Appellee.
No. 2D22-527
October 28, 2022
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for
Lee County; Keith R. Kyle, Judge.
Robert D. Pollock and Steve A. Kuhn of Kuhn Law Firm, P.A., Fort
Myers, for Appellant.
John F. Hooley of The Law Offices of John F. Hooley, P.A., Naples,
for Appellee.
SLEET, Judge.
Brianna Beck attempts to appeal the trial court's nonfinal
order denying her motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a
claim for punitive damages. Because we do not have jurisdiction,
we dismiss the appeal.
On February 8, 2022, Beck filed a motion for leave to amend
the complaint to add a claim for punitive damages. The same day,
the trial court entered an order denying Beck's motion. On
February 17, 2022, Beck filed a notice of appeal challenging the
nonfinal order pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130.
Although the Florida Supreme Court recently amended rule
9.130 to expand the jurisdiction of the district courts to allow them
to hear appeals of nonfinal orders that "grant or deny a motion for
leave to amend to assert a claim for punitive damages," it stated
that "[t]he amendment shall take effect on April 1, 2022, at 12:01
a.m." In re Amend. to Fla. Rule of App. Proc. 9.130, 345 So. 3d 725
(Fla. 2022) (creating subsection (G) of rule 9.130(a)(3)). Here, both
the date of the rendition of the order (February 8, 2022) and the
date of the notice of appeal (February 17, 2022) were prior to the
April 1 effective date of the amendment. Therefore, the version of
rule 9.130(a)(3) prior to the amendment controls. See Sarasota
Cnty. Pub. Hosp. Dist. v. Venice HMA, LLC, 325 So. 3d 334, 339 n.4
2
(Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (declining to apply the new version of rule
9.130(a)(3) because it was not in effect when the circuit court
entered the order at issue or when the county filed its petition with
the appellate court). And prior to the amendment, an order denying
leave to amend a pleading was considered a nonfinal and
nonappealable order. See Traveler v. Steiner Transocean, Ltd., 895
So. 2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Hochstadt v.
Sanctuary Homeowners Ass'n, 882 So. 2d 1094, 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA
2004) ("Therefore, the denial of Hochstadt's motions to amend his
complaint in that action constitute non-final, non-appealable
orders."); Zuppardo v. J.H. Invs., Inc., 300 So. 3d 775, 775 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2020) ("Michael Zuppardo appeals the order denying him leave
to amend his pleadings below. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction to
review this nonfinal, nonappealable order.").
Furthermore, we cannot convert this direct appeal to a petition
for certiorari. Although orders granting leave to amend to add a
claim for punitive damages were subject to certiorari review prior to
the amendment, orders denying leave to amend were not. See High
Five Prods., Inc. v. Riddle, 286 So. 3d 890, 890 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
("[A]n order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive damages is
3
not reviewable via certiorari because such a denial can be
adequately remedied on appeal."); Noack v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
of Fla., Inc., 872 So. 2d 370, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) ("[C]ertiorari is
not available to review the denial of a motion to add a claim for
punitive damages because an adequate remedy exists by way of
appeal."); Sloan v. Toler, 778 So. 2d 1094, 1095 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
("If the trial court erroneously prohibits a punitive damages claim,
the plaintiff may obtain relief by way of appeal at the conclusion of
the case."); see also Est. of Esterline v. Avante at Leesburg, Inc., 845
So. 2d 1028, 1029-30 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (adopting Sloan).
Accordingly, because at the time Beck filed her notice of
appeal an order denying a motion to add a claim for punitive
damages was a nonfinal, nonappealable order that also was not
reviewable via certiorari, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
4