Frank v. Comerica Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Frank v. Comerica Bank

134 So. 3d 1050, 2013 WL 4006981, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12347

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 7, 2013·No. No. 4D12-3572·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without discussion the trial court’s denial of Frank’s motion to quash service. We dismiss the remainder of Frank’s appeal. An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of standing is not listed as an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review [1051] the trial court’s order in regard to standing. Morton & Oxley, Ltd. v. Charles S. Eby, M.D., P.A., 916 So.2d 820, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So.2d 949, 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without discussion the trial court’s denial of Frank’s motion to quash service. We dismiss the remainder of Frank’s appeal. An order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of standing is not listed as an appealable non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review [1051] the trial court’s order in regard to standing. Morton & Oxley, Ltd. v. Charles S. Eby, M.D., P.A., 916 So.2d 820, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Supal v. Pelot, 469 So.2d 949, 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985).

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Frank v. Comerica Bank, 134 So. 3d 1050, 2013 WL 4006981, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 12347 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

134 So. 3d 1050 (Frank v. Comerica Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related