Provitola v. Comer

PER CURIAM. We affirm the final order dismissing Appellants’ second amended complaint with prejudice. See Bozeman v. City of St. Petersburg, 74 Fla. 336, 76 So. 894, 896 (1917) (holding that plaintiff could not maintain action to enjoin obstruction of public street where plaintiffs allegations were insufficient to show that he suffered “some special damage to his property or injury to him different not only in degree but in kind from the damage sustained by the community at large” (quoting Robbins v. White, 52 Fla. 613, 42 So. 841 (1907))); Wedner v. Escambia Chem. Corp., 102 So.2d 631, 632 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) (“The unauthorized obstruction of a public way is a common or public nuisance. It is not in itself ground upon which to maintain a private suit for injuries occasioned there *348 by. In order to maintain such a suit it must be shown that the party seeking relief has suffered some special injury, differing not only in degree, but in kind from that sustained by the community at large.”). We dismiss, without prejudice, Appellants’ appeal of the trial court order determining that Appellee was entitled to recover attorney’s fees under section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2016). An order that determines entitlement to attorney’s fees without setting the amount is a non-final, non-appealable order. Adlow, Inc. v. Mauda, Inc., 632 So.2d 714, 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). 1 AFFIRMED, in part;- DISMISSED, in part. EVANDER and EDWARDS, JJ., and ATKIN, J.E., Associate Judge, concur. Footnotes [1] The other issues raised on appeal are rendered moot by our affirmance of the trial court’s order of dismissal.