Webber Commercial Properties, LLC v. Mama Vagne Enterprises, Inc., Md Zahirul Haque Bhuiyuan, Shar Faraj, Syed S. Alam, and Tammana C. Ahmed
Docket 6D2025-0396
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- Florida
- Court
- District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Civil
- Disposition
- Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part
- Docket
- 6D2025-0396
Interlocutory appeal from a circuit court nonfinal order in summary proceedings for possession and a motion to determine rents.
Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal reviewed a nonfinal trial-court order in a landlord-tenant dispute. The court affirmed the portions of the order that related to the landlord’s summary proceedings for possession, but dismissed the appeal as to the trial court’s determination on a tenants’ motion to determine rents for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The panel held that Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) limits interlocutory appeals to orders determining the right to immediate possession, and an order resolving rents is not an enumerated, appealable nonfinal order.
Issues Decided
- Whether the district court has jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order resolving a motion to determine rents in summary possession proceedings.
- Whether the trial court’s order on the landlord’s summary proceedings for possession was properly decided.
Court's Reasoning
The court applied Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), which narrowly limits interlocutory appeals to certain nonfinal orders, including those determining the right to immediate possession. Because an order determining rents is not among the enumerated appealable nonfinal orders and was not the basis for issuance of a writ of possession, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over that portion of the appeal. The possession-related portions fell within the rule and were affirmed on the merits without further discussion.
Authorities Cited
- Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii)
- Aqua Bay Luxury Apartments, Inc. v. Ivory at Bay Harbour, LLC406 So. 3d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
- Walker v. Florida Gas Transmission Co., LLC134 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
Parties
- Appellant
- Webber Commercial Properties, LLC
- Appellee
- Mama Vagne Enterprises, Inc.
- Appellee
- MD Zahirul Haque Bhuiyuan
- Appellee
- Shar Faraj
- Appellee
- Syed S. Alam
- Appellee
- Tammana C. Ahmed
- Judge
- Michael T. McHugh
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-05-01
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider motion for rehearing in district court
File a motion for rehearing within the applicable time if the appellant believes the panel overlooked a controlling point of law regarding the possession ruling.
- 2
Seek an appealable trial-court order on rents
If challenging the rent determination, move in the trial court for an order that either grants a writ of possession based on rents or results in a final judgment, creating a proper basis for appellate review.
- 3
Consult appellate counsel
Discuss options with counsel about whether to pursue discretionary review or to pursue further proceedings in the trial court to create an appealable record.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on possession but dismissed the appeal of the order that determined rents because the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over that nonfinal ruling.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The landlord (Webber Commercial Properties) and the tenants/appellees are directly affected; the landlord retains the trial-court possession rulings while the rent determination remains subject to trial-court proceedings.
- What happens next in the lower court about rents?
- Because the appellate court dismissed that part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the trial court’s determination on rents stands for now and any further challenge would need to proceed in the trial court or via a properly appealable order.
- Can this decision be appealed further?
- The decision on possession was affirmed by the district court; further review would require a motion for rehearing or discretionary review by the Florida Supreme Court, but the court dismissed the rent appeal for lack of jurisdiction so the proper route is to obtain an appealable order or final judgment from the trial court.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2025-0396
Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CA-002863
_____________________________
WEBBER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC,
Appellant,
v.
MAMA VAGNE ENTERPRISES, INC., MD ZAHIRUL HAQUE BHUIYUAN, SHAR FARAJ,
SYED S. ALAM, and TAMMANA C. AHMED,
Appellees.
_____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.
Michael T. McHugh, Judge.
May 1, 2026
PER CURIAM.
Webber Commercial Properties, LLC appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order
on its summary proceedings for possession and Appellees’ motion to determine
rents. We affirm the parts of the order on Appellant’s summary proceedings for
possession without further discussion. As to the challenge to the parts of the order
on Appellees’ motion to determine rents, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) (“Appeals to the district courts of appeal of
nonfinal orders are limited to those that . . . determine . . . the right to immediate
possession of property.”); Aqua Bay Luxury Apartments, Inc. v. Ivory at Bay
Harbour, LLC, 406 So. 3d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (dismissing for lack of
jurisdiction the appeal of an order on a motion to determine rents because the order
is not enumerated in rule 9.130(a)(3) and was not the basis for the issuance of the
writ of possession); see also Walker v. Fla. Gas Transmission Co., LLC, 134 So. 3d
571, 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“[T]he categories of non-final orders subject to
interlocutory appeal are narrowly construed.” (citing Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bruns,
443 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla. 1984))); Greene v. Borsky, 961 So. 2d 1057, 1058–60 (Fla.
4th DCA 2007) (Farmer, J., dissenting) (analyzing rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and
concluding that it applied only to orders determining the right to immediate
possession of tangible personal property or real property, not to orders determining
the amount of a debt).
AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
STARGEL, WHITE and KAMOUTSAS, JJ., concur.
Brian D. Zinn, of Zinnlaw, PLLC, Fort Myers, for Appellant.
Jack C. Morgan, III, of Aloia Roland Lubell & Morgan PLLC, Fort Myers, for
Appellees, Mama Vagne Enterprises, Inc., MD Zehirul Haque Bhauiyuan, Syed S.
Alam, and Tammana C. Ahmed.
Matthew S. Toll, of Toll Law, Cape Coral, for Appellee, Shar Faraj.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
2