Veguez v. Hollingsworth Apts. Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Veguez v. Hollingsworth Apts. Corp.

473 So. 2d 21, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1789, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14446

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 23, 1985

DocketNo. 85-592

StatusPublished

This text of 473 So. 2d 21 (Veguez v. Hollingsworth Apts. Corp.) 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

Veguez v. Hollingsworth Apts. Corp., 473 So. 2d 21, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1789, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14446 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an order entered by the trial court in the early stages of a mortgage foreclosure action. The order requires the parties, through their counsel, to establish a joint trust account, receive rentals, pay expenses and service the superior mortgages. Appellants complain that the trial court should have required the co-trustees to make payments on the third mortgage.

It is clear from the limited record that a significant issue in this case is the existence of the third mortgage and, if it does in fact exist, to whom mortgage payments are to be made. The order in question is neither a final judgment, which would support a plenary appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, nor one of the nonfinal orders subject to review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We likewise conclude that it would be inappropriate on this record to treat this proceeding as a petition for certiorari, see Smith v. Glisson, 468 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an order entered by the trial court in the early stages of a mortgage foreclosure action. The order requires the parties, through their counsel, to establish a joint trust account, receive rentals, pay expenses and service the superior mortgages. Appellants complain that the trial court should have required the co-trustees to make payments on the third mortgage.

It is clear from the limited record that a significant issue in this case is the existence of the third mortgage and, if it does in fact exist, to whom mortgage payments are to be made. The order in question is neither a final judgment, which would support a plenary appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110, nor one of the nonfinal orders subject to review under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. We likewise conclude that it would be inappropriate on this record to treat this proceeding as a petition for certiorari, see Smith v. Glisson, 468 So.2d 394 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), and, accordingly, dismiss this appeal.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 So. 2d 21, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1789, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 14446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/veguez-v-hollingsworth-apts-corp-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack