Berk v. Berk

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berk v. Berk

272 So. 2d 859

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided January 22, 1973·No. No. 72-753·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of an order denying a motion for garnishment after judgment and granting a motion to quash same.

The appellant has not favored us with the original judgment, the motion for garnishment or the motion to quash. Therefore, we have no alternative but to affirm the action of the trial judge here under review. Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 90; Santona-Nervia Corporation v. Publix Market, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 394; Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 294; Jones v. First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 834; Rule 4.2, subd. d, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

By this interlocutory appeal, the appellant seeks review of an order denying a motion for garnishment after judgment and granting a motion to quash same.

The appellant has not favored us with the original judgment, the motion for garnishment or the motion to quash. Therefore, we have no alternative but to affirm the action of the trial judge here under review. Best v. Barnette, Fla.App.1961, 130 So.2d 90; Santona-Nervia Corporation v. Publix Market, Inc., Fla.App.1962, 146 So.2d 394; Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. King, Fla.App.1968, 207 So.2d 294; Jones v. First National Bank in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.App.1969, 226 So.2d 834; Rule 4.2, subd. d, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A.

Affirmed.

Berk v. Berk, 272 So. 2d 859 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

272 So. 2d 859 (Berk v. Berk) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related