Glover v. Glover

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Glover v. Glover

221 So. 3d 687, 2017 WL 2814886, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9421

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 28, 2017·No. No. 4D17-154·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We affirm the dismissal of appellant’s complaint against appellee, as the action was barred by the statute of limitations. § 726.110, Fla. Stat. (2014). None of the issues appellant raises have merit. We dismiss the appeal as to attorneys’ fees, as the trial court has not set the amount of the award. The fee order is therefore non-final and nonappealable, and this Court lacks jurisdiction presently to review it. See Greenberg v. Greenberg, 129 So.3d 470, 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So.2d 1372, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

Warner, Gerber and Forst, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

We affirm the dismissal of appellant’s complaint against appellee, as the action was barred by the statute of limitations. § 726.110, Fla. Stat. (2014). None of the issues appellant raises have merit. We dismiss the appeal as to attorneys’ fees, as the trial court has not set the amount of the award. The fee order is therefore non-final and nonappealable, and this Court lacks jurisdiction presently to review it. See Greenberg v. Greenberg, 129 So.3d 470, 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Ritter v. Ritter, 690 So.2d 1372, 1376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).

Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.

Warner, Gerber and Forst, JJ., concur.

Glover v. Glover, 221 So. 3d 687, 2017 WL 2814886, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 9421 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

221 So. 3d 687 (Glover v. Glover) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related