Singleton v. Tolson

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Singleton v. Tolson

865 So. 2d 561, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19745, 2003 WL 23094929

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 2003

DocketNo. 1D03-3846

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 865 So. 2d 561 (Singleton v. Tolson) 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

Singleton v. Tolson, 865 So. 2d 561, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19745, 2003 WL 23094929 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of November 13, 2003, the Court has determined that because judicial labor is incomplete with regard to the accounts identified in paragraph VIII of the July 21, 2003, Bifurcated Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage as to Division of Assets and Liabilities, the order is not final. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the initial brief, filed on November 18, 2003, is denied as moot.

BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, 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 November 13, 2003, the Court has determined that because judicial labor is incomplete with regard to the accounts identified in paragraph VIII of the July 21, 2003, Bifurcated Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage as to Division of Assets and Liabilities, the order is not final. See S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97 (Fla.1974); Hoffman v. O’Connor, 802 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the initial brief, filed on November 18, 2003, is denied as moot.

BOOTH, BENTON and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

865 So. 2d 561, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 19745, 2003 WL 23094929, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singleton-v-tolson-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack