Penabad v. GLADSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC.

823 So. 2d 146, 2002 WL 1285340
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 12, 2002
Docket3D02-760, 3D02-741
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 823 So. 2d 146 (Penabad v. GLADSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC.) 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
Penabad v. GLADSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC., 823 So. 2d 146, 2002 WL 1285340 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).

Opinion

823 So.2d 146 (2002)

Alicia PENABAD and Novel Penabad, Appellants,
v.
A.G. GLADSTONE ASSOCIATES, INC., a Florida corporation South Hampton Beach, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, Lynn Simms, Individually, and Robert and Kathryn Weyers, Individually and as Husband and Wife, Appellees.

Nos. 3D02-760, 3D02-741.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 12, 2002.
Reconsideration Denied August 21, 2002.

*147 Arnaldo Velez, Miami, for appellants.

William L. Petros, Miami, for appellee.

Before LEVY, GERSTEN, and GREEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for certiorari and an appeal from an order denying Alicia Penabad's motion to dissolve a lis pendens, which have been consolidated for purposes of this appeal. We dismiss this appeal for lack of standing. At the time of the underlying motion, Alicia Penabad had no ownership interest in the subject property because she had executed a quit claim deed transferring her interests to a third party. See Stas v. Posada, 760 So.2d 954, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (appellant with no ownership interest in property was not affected by order and thus precluded from seeking appellate review). Furthermore, Novel Penabad was not a party to the underlying motion to dissolve a lis pendens and, therefore, also has no standing here. See Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So.2d 540, 541 (Fla.1953) (general rule on appeal is that party may appeal only from decision adverse to him).

Appeal dismissed.

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

Related

Liliana Sanchez v. Consolidated Real Estate Investments, Etc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
U.S. Bancorp, etc. v. Taharra Assets 5545, Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
Bankers Lending Services, Inc. v. Regents Park Investments, LLC
225 So. 3d 884 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Beggi v. Bank
91 So. 3d 193 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Portfolio Investments Corp. v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
81 So. 3d 534 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Fcd Development, LLC v. South Florida Sports Committee, Inc.
37 So. 3d 905 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
Smith v. Chepolis
896 So. 2d 934 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2005)
Morrell v. National Health Investors, Inc.
876 So. 2d 580 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
823 So. 2d 146, 2002 WL 1285340, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penabad-v-gladstone-associates-inc-fladistctapp-2002.