Mann v. Davis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mann v. Davis

131 So. 3d 830, 2014 WL 628141, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2179

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-5571

StatusPublished

This text of 131 So. 3d 830 (Mann v. Davis) 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

Mann v. Davis, 131 So. 3d 830, 2014 WL 628141, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2179 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of January 2, 2014, the Court has determined that the order on appeal does not finally determine a right or obligation of an interested party and is therefore not subject to appellate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.170(b). See Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding determination that beneficiary was entitled to share of estate was not final until specific award was defined); [831]*831In re Estate of Walters, 700 So.2d 434, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that in order to be reviewable, probate order must finally determine a right or obligation of an interested party, thereby terminating the judicial labor on the issue); see also Demont v. Demont, 24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing appeal rather than allowing lower court to enter a final order where an indeterminate amount of judicial labor remained to be done before a final order could be entered).

Moreover, because the underlying order is not a final order, the motion for relief from judgment was not an authorized motion, and the order on the motion is not appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First Street Mortgage Corp., 870 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (dismissing appeal where order denied relief from interlocutory order). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

LEWIS, C. J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s order of January 2, 2014, the Court has determined that the order on appeal does not finally determine a right or obligation of an interested party and is therefore not subject to appellate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.170(b). See Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (concluding determination that beneficiary was entitled to share of estate was not final until specific award was defined); [831]*831In re Estate of Walters, 700 So.2d 434, n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (noting that in order to be reviewable, probate order must finally determine a right or obligation of an interested party, thereby terminating the judicial labor on the issue); see also Demont v. Demont, 24 So.3d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (dismissing appeal rather than allowing lower court to enter a final order where an indeterminate amount of judicial labor remained to be done before a final order could be entered).

Moreover, because the underlying order is not a final order, the motion for relief from judgment was not an authorized motion, and the order on the motion is not appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First Street Mortgage Corp., 870 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (dismissing appeal where order denied relief from interlocutory order). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

LEWIS, C. J., WOLF and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 So. 3d 830, 2014 WL 628141, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mann-v-davis-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack