Edelstein v. BEAGELL

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Edelstein v. BEAGELL

7 So. 3d 564, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1539, 2009 WL 500913

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 27, 2009

Docket1D08-5673

StatusPublished

This text of 7 So. 3d 564 (Edelstein v. BEAGELL) 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

Edelstein v. BEAGELL, 7 So. 3d 564, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1539, 2009 WL 500913 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order of December 11, 2008, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, entitled “Final Order on Petition for Determination of Beneficiaries,” denied the petition below without making any final determination as to the beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore, the order on appeal did not “finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person,” so as to be appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). See Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sanchez v. Masterhan, 837 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

The appellee’s “Motion to Dismiss and/or Require Appellant to Properly Designate the Record on Appeal,” filed on January 15, 2008, as well as the “Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Initial Brief,” filed on January 29, 2009, are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

WEBSTER, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order of December 11, 2008, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, entitled “Final Order on Petition for Determination of Beneficiaries,” denied the petition below without making any final determination as to the beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore, the order on appeal did not “finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person,” so as to be appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). See Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sanchez v. Masterhan, 837 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

The appellee’s “Motion to Dismiss and/or Require Appellant to Properly Designate the Record on Appeal,” filed on January 15, 2008, as well as the “Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Initial Brief,” filed on January 29, 2009, are denied as moot.

DISMISSED.

WEBSTER, BROWNING and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 So. 3d 564, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 1539, 2009 WL 500913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edelstein-v-beagell-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack