ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND SUGGESTION OF DIRECT CONFLICT
PER CURIAM.
We issued a per curiam affirmance without opinion in this case. In addition to several other issues presented, appellant sought to appeal an order denying a motion for summary judgment on a question involving an award of attorney's fees. We declined to review that issue or to certify a conflict as suggested because, in our view, no appealable order had been entered on that issue.See Maryland Casualty Co. v. Century Construction Corp., 656 So.2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (non-final orders entered after final order on authorized motions which do not suspend rendition immediately reviewable only if they would not otherwise be reviewable following entry of subsequent final order); see also Scullin v. City of Pensacola, 667 So.2d 215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Our affirmance is without prejudice to raise this issue when an appealable order has been entered. The motion for clarification is GRANTED to the extent indicated; however, we decline to accept the suggestion of conflict.
BOOTH, JOANOS and WOLF, JJ., CONCUR.