Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Gold

681 So. 2d 1204, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11149, 1996 WL 625726
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Gold. Read the opinion of the Court — 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 2524
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided October 25, 1996·No. No. 96-2952·Published

Opinion

HARRIS, Judge.

We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the August 27,1996 order denying the petitioners’ motion on the jurisdictional issues. Even if such order is only “voidable,” under the facts of this case we conclude that the order should not stand. Further, because an independent determination under Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.160(h) was not made during the October 24, 1996 hearing (the court merely relied on the former order), we also quash the October 24, 1996 order denying the petitioners’ motion on the jurisdictional issues. We, therefore; direct the trial court to decide the issue of jurisdiction before the evidence on the merits is received during the trial of this cause. See, Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Gold, 669 So.2d 362 (Fla. 6th DCA 1996).

WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED, ORDERS QUASHED.

THOMPSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.

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

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Gold, 681 So. 2d 1204, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 11149, 1996 WL 625726 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

681 So. 2d 1204 (Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Gold) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Gold
669 So. 2d 362 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)