Scanlan v. Scanlan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Scanlan v. Scanlan

736 So. 2d 1269, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9283, 1999 WL 528829

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 14, 1999

DocketNo. 98-1047, 98-1829

StatusPublished

This text of 736 So. 2d 1269 (Scanlan v. Scanlan) 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

Scanlan v. Scanlan, 736 So. 2d 1269, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9283, 1999 WL 528829 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition in this case. The petitions did not state a cause of action against Timothy Scanlon in his capacity as personal representative of his father’s estate. The petition did not name Scanlon, individually, as a party. There was no basis stated in the petition to assert jurisdiction over Scanlon in his individual capacity. We reject ap-pellee’s argument that Campbell v. Owen, 132 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), can support a cause of action against Scanlon, as personal representative, in this case. We do not reach any of the other jurisdictional issues raised by appellant in this case; those issues may, or may not, ripen depending on the amendment to the pleadings on remand. We also reverse the trial court’s order striking the notice of appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the petition in this case. The petitions did not state a cause of action against Timothy Scanlon in his capacity as personal representative of his father’s estate. The petition did not name Scanlon, individually, as a party. There was no basis stated in the petition to assert jurisdiction over Scanlon in his individual capacity. We reject ap-pellee’s argument that Campbell v. Owen, 132 So.2d 212 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), can support a cause of action against Scanlon, as personal representative, in this case. We do not reach any of the other jurisdictional issues raised by appellant in this case; those issues may, or may not, ripen depending on the amendment to the pleadings on remand. We also reverse the trial court’s order striking the notice of appeal.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

736 So. 2d 1269, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 9283, 1999 WL 528829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scanlan-v-scanlan-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack