Mathews v. RISK MANAGEMENT

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mathews v. RISK MANAGEMENT

16 So. 3d 230, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11321, 2009 WL 2475159

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 14, 2009

Docket1D08-5448

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 16 So. 3d 230 (Mathews v. RISK MANAGEMENT) 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

Mathews v. RISK MANAGEMENT, 16 So. 3d 230, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11321, 2009 WL 2475159 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has sought review of the Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Final Judgment on Reimbursement of Funds, wherein the lower tribunal concluded that it had previously addressed the appellant’s arguments and denied the appellant’s motion. The appellant characterizes this order as a final order denying his request for reimbursement of funds withdrawn pursuant to a lien erroneously imposed on his inmate trust account. The proper avenue to seek relief from an improperly placed lien that is entered in the course of a collateral criminal proceeding is to preserve the issue and raise it in the appeal of the final judgment entei'ed in the proceeding. See Lopez v. McDonough, 935 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, no final order disposing of the underlying action has yet been rendered. For this reason, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. See Banks v. State, 916 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). This dismissal is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek review upon entry of a final order disposing of the underlying action. In light of this opinion dismissing the appeal, all pending motions are denied as moot.

HAWKES, C.J., LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has sought review of the Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Final Judgment on Reimbursement of Funds, wherein the lower tribunal concluded that it had previously addressed the appellant’s arguments and denied the appellant’s motion. The appellant characterizes this order as a final order denying his request for reimbursement of funds withdrawn pursuant to a lien erroneously imposed on his inmate trust account. The proper avenue to seek relief from an improperly placed lien that is entered in the course of a collateral criminal proceeding is to preserve the issue and raise it in the appeal of the final judgment entei'ed in the proceeding. See Lopez v. McDonough, 935 So.2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Here, no final order disposing of the underlying action has yet been rendered. For this reason, the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. See Banks v. State, 916 So.2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). This dismissal is without prejudice to the appellant’s right to seek review upon entry of a final order disposing of the underlying action. In light of this opinion dismissing the appeal, all pending motions are denied as moot.

HAWKES, C.J., LEWIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 So. 3d 230, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 11321, 2009 WL 2475159, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mathews-v-risk-management-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack