Hull v. Byrom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hull v. Byrom

75 So. 3d 427, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19999, 2011 WL 6224493

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided December 15, 2011·No. No. 1D10-6520·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the dismissal of Byrom, P.A. as a party to the underlying surcharge action. However, we decline to reach the [428] issue of whether the trial court erred in striking portions of the surcharge petition as that issue was prematurely raised and is properly considered at the conclusion of all judicial labor. See Cole v. Bayley Prods., Inc., 661 So.2d 1299, 1800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (determining that an interlocutory order on motion to strike is not reviewable prior to final judgment).

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.

WOLF, HAWKES, and ROBERTS, 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 Byrom, P.A. as a party to the underlying surcharge action. However, we decline to reach the [428] issue of whether the trial court erred in striking portions of the surcharge petition as that issue was prematurely raised and is properly considered at the conclusion of all judicial labor. See Cole v. Bayley Prods., Inc., 661 So.2d 1299, 1800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (determining that an interlocutory order on motion to strike is not reviewable prior to final judgment).

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.

WOLF, HAWKES, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Hull v. Byrom, 75 So. 3d 427, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19999, 2011 WL 6224493 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

75 So. 3d 427 (Hull v. Byrom) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related