Lurtz v. Bank of New York Mellon

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Lurtz v. Bank of New York Mellon

162 So. 3d 11, 2014 WL 940627, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3462

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 2014

DocketNo. 4D13-2251

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 162 So. 3d 11 (Lurtz v. Bank of New York Mellon) 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

Lurtz v. Bank of New York Mellon, 162 So. 3d 11, 2014 WL 940627, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3462 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in conducting a foreclosure trial before the case was at issue, in contravention to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(a). Rule 1.440(a) states that “[a]n action is at issue after any motions directed to the last pleading served have been disposed of or, if no such motions are served, 20 days after service of the last pleading.” Appellee concedes, and we agree, that the trial court improperly issued an order setting a non-jury trial and held a trial less than twenty days after the [12]*12service of the last pleading in violation of Rule 1.440(a). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial in compliance with rule 1.440(a).

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in conducting a foreclosure trial before the case was at issue, in contravention to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.440(a). Rule 1.440(a) states that “[a]n action is at issue after any motions directed to the last pleading served have been disposed of or, if no such motions are served, 20 days after service of the last pleading.” Appellee concedes, and we agree, that the trial court improperly issued an order setting a non-jury trial and held a trial less than twenty days after the [12]*12service of the last pleading in violation of Rule 1.440(a). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new trial in compliance with rule 1.440(a).

Reversed and Remanded.

WARNER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 So. 3d 11, 2014 WL 940627, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 3462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lurtz-v-bank-of-new-york-mellon-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack