Pierce v. Pierce

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pierce v. Pierce

46 So. 3d 606, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13322, 2010 WL 3465253

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 7, 2010

DocketNo. 1D10-1872

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 So. 3d 606 (Pierce v. Pierce) 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

Pierce v. Pierce, 46 So. 3d 606, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13322, 2010 WL 3465253 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of July 8, 2010, the Court has determined that the order on appeal, which denied a motion to enforce a mediated settlement agreement and set aside the agreement upon determining it was signed under duress, is not one which finally determines a right or obligation of an interested person in a [607]*607probate matter. Thus, the order is not subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this dismissal, all pending motions are denied as moot.

DAVIS, BENTON, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of July 8, 2010, the Court has determined that the order on appeal, which denied a motion to enforce a mediated settlement agreement and set aside the agreement upon determining it was signed under duress, is not one which finally determines a right or obligation of an interested person in a [607]*607probate matter. Thus, the order is not subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this dismissal, all pending motions are denied as moot.

DAVIS, BENTON, and CLARK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 So. 3d 606, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 13322, 2010 WL 3465253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-pierce-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack