Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedAugust 21, 2024
Docket2023-1623
StatusPublished

This text of Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust (Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust) 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
Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Opinion

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

No. 1D2023-1623 _____________________________

FINNA ANN CLAY, JACKIE DIANE CLAY, FINNA ANN CLAY, as Trustee of the Janie Mae Clay Special Needs Trust dated August 18, 2014, and LARRY JEROME CLAY,

Appellants,

v.

SYNOVUS TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee of the Teddie Clay a/k/a Teddy Clay Revocable Trust dated August 18, 2014,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. W. Joel Boles, Judge.

August 21, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an order granting summary judgment in a probate case. Upon review, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction. See Wade v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 57 So. 3d 869, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reaffirming that appellate courts have an independent duty “to examine our jurisdiction in every case even if, as here, the issue was not raised”). The order sought to be reviewed is not a final order. See Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (dismissing an appeal as premature because the order merely grants a motion for summary judgment and “does not contain sufficient language of finality to unequivocally bring an end to the required judicial labor”); see also Cody v. Cody, 127 So. 3d 753, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that an order construing a will and determining the testator’s intent was not a final order for purposes of appeal because further judicial action was contemplated regarding the legal description of land to be distributed to the beneficiaries). Nor does the order fall within any of the enumerated categories of appealable nonfinal orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(3). Even if it were reviewable under rule 9.130, then the appeal would be untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the order granting summary judgment.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Shiraz A. Hosein of Anchors Smith Grimsley, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellants.

Brian W. Hoffman of Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux, LLC, Pensacola, for Appellee.

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

Related

Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery v. West Florida Regional Medical Center
993 So. 2d 1060 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2008)
Cody v. Cody
127 So. 3d 753 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Wade v. Florida Department of Children & Families
57 So. 3d 869 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clay, Clay v. Clay, Teddy Clay Revocable Trust, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-clay-v-clay-teddy-clay-revocable-trust-fladistctapp-2024.