Culberth v. Keith

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Culberth v. Keith

323 So. 2d 281

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 12, 1975

DocketNo. 75-542

StatusPublished

This text of 323 So. 2d 281 (Culberth v. Keith) 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

Culberth v. Keith, 323 So. 2d 281 (Fla. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant takes a plenary appeal from a trial court order denying appellant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings in an action to quiet title. The order appealed is an interlocutory order and the appeal should have been designated an interlocutory appeal as provided by Rule 4.2 F.A.R. (1975). However, we shall treat the appeal as an interlocutory appeal. DeWitt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 268 So.2d 177 (Fla.App.1972).

Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the brief of appellant's counsel, counsel for appellee having failed to file a brief, we determine that the appellee’s answer to appellant’s complaint raises issues of fact to be determined by the trial court upon presentation of evidence by the parties. Therefore, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant takes a plenary appeal from a trial court order denying appellant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings in an action to quiet title. The order appealed is an interlocutory order and the appeal should have been designated an interlocutory appeal as provided by Rule 4.2 F.A.R. (1975). However, we shall treat the appeal as an interlocutory appeal. DeWitt v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 268 So.2d 177 (Fla.App.1972).

Upon review of the record on appeal and after consideration of the brief of appellant's counsel, counsel for appellee having failed to file a brief, we determine that the appellee’s answer to appellant’s complaint raises issues of fact to be determined by the trial court upon presentation of evidence by the parties. Therefore, the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion for a judgment on the pleadings is affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and CROSS and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

323 So. 2d 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/culberth-v-keith-fladistctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack