Patel v. Wilmington Savings

249 So. 3d 778
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJuly 2, 2018
Docket5D17-1900
StatusPublished

This text of 249 So. 3d 778 (Patel v. Wilmington Savings) 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
Patel v. Wilmington Savings, 249 So. 3d 778 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

HASMUKHBAI PATEL, A/K/A HASMUKH PATEL AND HEMUBEN PATEL, A/K/A HEMU PATEL,

Appellants,

v. Case No. 5D17-1900

WILMINGTON SAVINGS BANK, FSB, AS TRUSTEE FOR STANWICH MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST A,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed July 6, 2018

Non-Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, John E. Jordan, Judge.

Eric O. Husby, Tampa, for Appellants.

Thomas Wade Young and Joseph B. Towne, of Lender Legal Services, LLC, Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Hasmukhbai Patel and Hemuben Patel appeal the trial court’s nonfinal order

denying their motion to quash constructive service of process in the foreclosure action

brought by Wilmington Savings Bank, FSB, as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust

A (“the Bank”), against the Patels. Because the trial court did not rule that it obtained personal jurisdiction over the Patels, but instead determined only that it had in rem

jurisdiction, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this nonfinal order and we dismiss the

appeal. See Archer v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 220 So. 3d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)

(dismissing appeal because nonfinal order denying mortgagor’s motion to quash

constructive service of process did not refer to personal jurisdiction and no assertion of

personal jurisdiction was made in trial court); Koniecpolski v. Stelnicki, 571 So. 2d 577,

578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (dismissing appeal because Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) does not vest jurisdiction in this Court over nonfinal order denying motion

to quash constructive service of process in foreclosure proceeding when order does not

determine jurisdiction of person).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Archer v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n
220 So. 3d 477 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Koniecpolski v. Stelnicki
571 So. 2d 577 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 So. 3d 778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patel-v-wilmington-savings-fladistctapp-2018.