Stevens v. Bank of America, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stevens v. Bank of America, N.A.

36 So. 3d 808, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7329, 2010 WL 2079663

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 26, 2010

Docket1D09-1990

StatusPublished

This text of 36 So. 3d 808 (Stevens v. Bank of America, N.A.) 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

Stevens v. Bank of America, N.A., 36 So. 3d 808, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7329, 2010 WL 2079663 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. However, the order on appeal did not address Appellant’s counterclaims. On April 21, 2010, this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed due to the pending counterclaims. Appellant failed to respond to this Court’s order. Based on the record, this Court has determined that Appellant has prematurely filed the notice of appeal. Because the counterclaims are not separate and distinct from the claims disposed of on summary judgment, the order under review is not appealable as a partial final judgment. Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Dempsey v. Russell, 966 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DAVIS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of an order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee. However, the order on appeal did not address Appellant’s counterclaims. On April 21, 2010, this Court issued an order directing Appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed due to the pending counterclaims. Appellant failed to respond to this Court’s order. Based on the record, this Court has determined that Appellant has prematurely filed the notice of appeal. Because the counterclaims are not separate and distinct from the claims disposed of on summary judgment, the order under review is not appealable as a partial final judgment. Jensen v. Whetstine, 985 So.2d 1218, 1220 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Dempsey v. Russell, 966 So.2d 1021, 1022 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Accordingly, we DISMISS this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DAVIS, CLARK, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 So. 3d 808, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 7329, 2010 WL 2079663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stevens-v-bank-of-america-na-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack