Alyssa Reardon v. RJConsulting 4005 LLC

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida

Opinion filed May 20, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D26-0418
Lower Tribunal No. 21-19683-CA-01
________________

Alyssa Reardon,
Appellant,

vs.

RJConsulting 4005 LLC,
Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R.
Manno Schurr, Judge.

Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP, and Marta Colomar-Garcia, Mitchell
Jagodinski and John Q. Foster, for appellant.

Roniel Rodriguez IV, P.A., and Roniel Rodriguez IV, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER and GOODEN, JJ.

SCALES, C.J.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

This is a breach of contract case concerning a failed real estate

transaction between appellant Alyssa Reardon (“Buyer”) and appellee

RJConsulting 4005 LLC (“Seller”). Buyer seeks to appeal two trial court

orders. Specifically, Buyer’s notice of appeal represents that (i) the trial

court’s April 20, 2023 summary judgment order (“Final Judgment”) is a partial

final judgment on Seller’s operative amended counterclaim, and (ii) the trial

court’s November 21, 2025 order (“Order”) is a partial final judgment on

Buyer’s operative amended complaint. Claiming that all judicial labor in this

case has now ended, Buyer seeks to appeal the two orders that purportedly

adjudicated the “separate and distinct claims” alleged in the parties’

pleadings. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k) (“Except as otherwise provided

herein, partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the

partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire

case.”). Seller has moved to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We

agree with Seller and dismiss the appeal.

Contrary to Buyer’s suggestion, the Final Judgment fully adjudicated

the parties’ interdependent claims,1 awarding Seller liquidated damages of

1
The parties executed a standard “as is” residential contract for the purchase
and sale of a condominium. Buyer’s amended complaint sought to have the
contract voided. Seller’s amended counterclaim sought entitlement to

2
$100,000, plus $15,090 in prejudgment interest. Outside of reserving

jurisdiction for ancillary matters (such as attorney’s fees and costs), the Final

Judgment ended all judicial labor in the case and, therefore, was a final,

appealable judgment. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So. 2d 97,

99 (Fla. 1974) (“Generally, the test employed by the appellate court to

determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the order in

question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing

further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the

cause as between the parties directly affected.”). Buyer neither sought

rehearing of the Final Judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure

1.530(b), nor appealed the Final Judgment under Florida Rule of Appellate

Procedure 9.110(b).

Buyer subsequently moved to vacate the Final Judgment under Florida

Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) on the ground of excusable neglect. The

trial court entered an order denying Buyer’s amended rule 1.540 motion.

Buyer did not appeal the rule 1.540 order. Buyer then – in a clear attempt to

revive her right to appeal the Final Judgment – moved for summary judgment

$100,000 as liquidated damages based on a contractual provision governing
Buyer’s breach.

3
on her amended complaint, which the trial court properly refused to entertain

in the Order.

Because (i) the Final Judgment fully adjudicated the parties’

interdependent claims and ended all judicial labor in this case, (ii) Buyer

failed to timely appeal the Final Judgment, and (iii) Buyer cannot revive her

right to appeal the Final Judgment through the Order, we dismiss this appeal

for lack of jurisdiction. See Hunt v. Forbes, 65 So. 3d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA

2011) (dismissing appeal, concluding that because the time for seeking

rehearing from the final order had expired, “the trial court’s subsequent entry

of an ‘Amended Final Judgment’ could not serve to revive the appellant’s

right to appeal” the final order); cf. People’s Tr. Ins. Co. v. Slavin, 338 So. 3d

276, 278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (concluding that the appellant could not revive

the right to appeal a non-final order by filing what amounted to an

unauthorized motion for rehearing of the non-final order and then appealing

from the order denying the rehearing motion).

Dismissal motion granted; appeal dismissed.

4