Diasti v. Department of Revenue

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Diasti v. Department of Revenue

122 So. 3d 492, 2013 WL 5340493, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15196, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2047

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 25, 2013

DocketNo. 2D12-5582

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 122 So. 3d 492 (Diasti v. Department of Revenue) 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

Diasti v. Department of Revenue, 122 So. 3d 492, 2013 WL 5340493, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15196, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2047 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MORRIS, Judge.

Terek Diasti a/k/a Derek Diasti appeals a nonfinal order that determines both that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Diasti and that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the cause of action. We have jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order that determines the jurisdiction over the person, Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and to the extent that the order on appeal deals with that issue, we affirm without further comment. However, to the extent that the order on appeal addresses subject matter jurisdiction, it is a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See Grasso v. Grasso, 113 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); L.A.D. Prop. Ventures, Inc. v. First Bank, 19 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hitt v. Homes & Land Brokers, Inc., 993 So.2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We therefore dismiss that portion of the appeal.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

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

MORRIS, Judge.

Terek Diasti a/k/a Derek Diasti appeals a nonfinal order that determines both that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Diasti and that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the cause of action. We have jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order that determines the jurisdiction over the person, Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and to the extent that the order on appeal deals with that issue, we affirm without further comment. However, to the extent that the order on appeal addresses subject matter jurisdiction, it is a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See Grasso v. Grasso, 113 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); L.A.D. Prop. Ventures, Inc. v. First Bank, 19 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hitt v. Homes & Land Brokers, Inc., 993 So.2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We therefore dismiss that portion of the appeal.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 So. 3d 492, 2013 WL 5340493, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 15196, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 2047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/diasti-v-department-of-revenue-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack