Ferris v. Ferris

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ferris v. Ferris

727 So. 2d 286, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1317, 1999 WL 69651

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 10, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2913

StatusPublished

This text of 727 So. 2d 286 (Ferris v. Ferris) 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

Ferris v. Ferris, 727 So. 2d 286, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1317, 1999 WL 69651 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals from an order denying a motion to rescind a judgment of garnishment. In his motion to rescind, the appellant claimed that he did not receive a copy of the garnishment entered about nine months earlier. The court denied the motion, and appellant filed a motion for rehearing raising entirely new issues related to the substance of the garnishment judgment itself. That too was denied. From that denial, he appeals. The points argued in this appeal should have been raised in an appeal of the garnishment judgment itself and are thus untimely. No argument having been advanced that the denial of the motion to rescind was error, we affirm.

DELL, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals from an order denying a motion to rescind a judgment of garnishment. In his motion to rescind, the appellant claimed that he did not receive a copy of the garnishment entered about nine months earlier. The court denied the motion, and appellant filed a motion for rehearing raising entirely new issues related to the substance of the garnishment judgment itself. That too was denied. From that denial, he appeals. The points argued in this appeal should have been raised in an appeal of the garnishment judgment itself and are thus untimely. No argument having been advanced that the denial of the motion to rescind was error, we affirm.

DELL, WARNER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

727 So. 2d 286, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 1317, 1999 WL 69651, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferris-v-ferris-fladistctapp-1999.