Campbell v. Landmark First National Bank of Ft. Lauderdale

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Campbell v. Landmark First National Bank of Ft. Lauderdale

421 So. 2d 813, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22110

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 17, 1982

DocketNo. 81-2117

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 421 So. 2d 813 (Campbell v. Landmark First National Bank of Ft. Lauderdale) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell v. Landmark First National Bank of Ft. Lauderdale, 421 So. 2d 813, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22110 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) from an order denying appellants’ motion to quash constructive service upon them. It is apparent from our examination of the transcript of the hearing that, in denying appellants’ motion, the trial court was permitting appellee to proceed on the basis of constructive service of process solely upon Count I of its complaint. That count alleged a quasi in rem action to have the court impose a constructive trust, appoint a receiver and require an accounting. We affirm the order. See section 49.011, Florida Statutes (1979), and Gribbel v. Henderson, 151 Fla. 712, 10 So.2d 734 (1942). Appellants’ motion to discharge lis pendens did not submit appellants to the jurisdiction of the court as to the remaining counts in personam. See Green v. Roth, 192 So.2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), and Callaghan v. Callaghan, 337 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

BERANEK, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) from an order denying appellants’ motion to quash constructive service upon them. It is apparent from our examination of the transcript of the hearing that, in denying appellants’ motion, the trial court was permitting appellee to proceed on the basis of constructive service of process solely upon Count I of its complaint. That count alleged a quasi in rem action to have the court impose a constructive trust, appoint a receiver and require an accounting. We affirm the order. See section 49.011, Florida Statutes (1979), and Gribbel v. Henderson, 151 Fla. 712, 10 So.2d 734 (1942). Appellants’ motion to discharge lis pendens did not submit appellants to the jurisdiction of the court as to the remaining counts in personam. See Green v. Roth, 192 So.2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), and Callaghan v. Callaghan, 337 So.2d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

BERANEK, GLICKSTEIN and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

421 So. 2d 813, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-landmark-first-national-bank-of-ft-lauderdale-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack