Pridgen v. First Union Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pridgen v. First Union Bank

879 So. 2d 21, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6067, 2004 WL 912668

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 30, 2004

DocketNo. 2D03-2311

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 879 So. 2d 21 (Pridgen v. First Union Bank) 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

Pridgen v. First Union Bank, 879 So. 2d 21, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 6067, 2004 WL 912668 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

NORTHCUTT, Judge.

This case arises from a mortgage foreclosure. Irene Pridgen previously filed an untimely appeal from the final judgment of foreclosure, and this court dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. Roughly twenty-five months after the foreclosure judgment was rendered, Pridgen filed this appeal, directed to an order scheduling the foreclosure sale.

An order that merely schedules a foreclosure sale is not a final appealable order. Rather, it is a purely administrative, interlocutory step in the judicial sales process. See § 45.031(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). Neither is the order appealed here an appealable nonfinal order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.

In any event, Pridgen’s brief makes no complaint about the order appealed. Rather, all of her arguments challenge the underlying foreclosure judgment, which was not timely appealed. We have no jurisdiction to grant her any relief in that regard. See Beal Bank, S.S.B., Inc. v. Sherwin, 829 So.2d 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Hoyt v. State, 810 So.2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).

For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal.

STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.

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