Harris v. Summer Palms Apartments — Appeal dismissed as interlocutory, not appealable

Case
Gwendolyn Harris v. Summer Palms Apartments, LLC
Court
Florida Second District Court of Appeal
Judge
Per Curiam
Date Decided
July 8, 2026
Docket No.
2D2025-1513
Topics
Appellate Procedure, Interlocutory Orders, Right to Possession
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Gwendolyn Harris, representing herself, appealed an order from the County Court for Hillsborough County (Judge Lisa Allen) involving Summer Palms Apartments, LLC. Harris sought review of an interlocutory order relating to property possession rights.

The Court’s Holding

The Florida Second District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that the underlying order is not appealable because it is a nonfinal, interlocutory order that does not determine the “right to immediate possession of property” as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). The court noted that the lower court did not make a determination regarding either party’s right to possess the property, distinguishing this case from the narrow category of possession orders that are immediately appealable. Relying on precedent from Red Beryl, Inc. v. Sarasota Vault Depository, Inc. and Marina Bay Hotel and Club, Inc. v. McCallum, the court reaffirmed that appellate review is limited to orders that more directly determine immediate possession rights than the type of order at issue here.

Key Takeaways

  • Interlocutory orders concerning property do not automatically qualify as appealable decisions under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii).
  • An order must directly determine the immediate right to possession to fall within the narrow exceptions to the final-order rule.
  • Courts strictly construe the appellate exception for possession orders to maintain the finality requirement in civil procedure.

Why It Matters

This decision reinforces Florida’s restrictive approach to appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders in property disputes. The ruling clarifies that parties cannot bypass the final-order requirement by framing an appeal around possession rights unless the trial court has actually made a substantive determination on those rights. For self-represented litigants and practitioners, the opinion underscores the importance of identifying whether an order is truly final or merely interlocutory before investing resources in appellate review.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top