Rodrigo v. Jp Morgan Chase National Association

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodrigo v. Jp Morgan Chase National Association

47 So. 3d 970, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18315, 2010 WL 4861726

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 1, 2010

Docket4D10-1787

StatusPublished

This text of 47 So. 3d 970 (Rodrigo v. Jp Morgan Chase National Association) 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

Rodrigo v. Jp Morgan Chase National Association, 47 So. 3d 970, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18315, 2010 WL 4861726 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a non-final order granting her motion to restore possession of her home but with the condition that she turn on the water and air conditioning to her unit. During the hearing on appellant’s motion to restore possession of property, appellant’s counsel agreed to these conditions. Having invited the alleged error, appellant cannot now be heard to complain. See Held v. Held, 617 So.2d 358, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“A party cannot claim as error on appeal that which he invited or introduced below. That is, he cannot take an inconsistent position on appeal.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm on this issue.

Appellant also seeks to appeal a non-final order denying her motion for relief, which added as an additional condition that the appellee bank may enter the property with her permission. A non-final order denying a motion for relief from a non-final order is not renewable on appeal. See Hi-Tech Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. Thiem, 659 So.2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the order denying the motion for relief.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a non-final order granting her motion to restore possession of her home but with the condition that she turn on the water and air conditioning to her unit. During the hearing on appellant’s motion to restore possession of property, appellant’s counsel agreed to these conditions. Having invited the alleged error, appellant cannot now be heard to complain. See Held v. Held, 617 So.2d 358, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“A party cannot claim as error on appeal that which he invited or introduced below. That is, he cannot take an inconsistent position on appeal.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm on this issue.

Appellant also seeks to appeal a non-final order denying her motion for relief, which added as an additional condition that the appellee bank may enter the property with her permission. A non-final order denying a motion for relief from a non-final order is not renewable on appeal. See Hi-Tech Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. Thiem, 659 So.2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the order denying the motion for relief.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 So. 3d 970, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18315, 2010 WL 4861726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodrigo-v-jp-morgan-chase-national-association-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack