Vita v. Stern

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vita v. Stern

182 So. 3d 846, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 91, 2016 WL 66559

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 2016

Docket15-0755

StatusPublished

This text of 182 So. 3d 846 (Vita v. Stern) 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

Vita v. Stern, 182 So. 3d 846, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 91, 2016 WL 66559 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

SCALES, J.

Appellant Peter Vita (“Vita”) appeals two final judgments entered by the trial court: Order Granting Third Party Bidder Steven Berke’s Motion for Writ of Possession (“Possession Order”) and Order Upon Third Party Purchaser’s Motion for. Payment of Rent (“Payment Order”). In his appeal, Vita challenges these two final orders by asserting three distinct issues: (i) the trial court failed to properly determine Vita’s tenancy status; (ii) the trial court erred by granting a double remedy; and (iii) the trial court erred in entering the Payment Order against his wife, Kimberly Vita.

As to • the first and ■ second issues on appeal, we affirm without further discussion. As to the third issue on appeal, Vita asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Vita’s wife, and therefore erred by including her in the Payment Order as if she were a defendant. We agree. Because Kimberly Vita was never named in the lawsuit and never received service of process, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction to enter a judgment against her. See Synchron, Inc. v. Kogan, 757 So.2d 564, 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). .

We reverse the Payment Order and, remand for the entry of a revised payment order thát omits Kimberly Vita. We affirm the Payment Order and the Possession Order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

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

SCALES, J.

Appellant Peter Vita (“Vita”) appeals two final judgments entered by the trial court: Order Granting Third Party Bidder Steven Berke’s Motion for Writ of Possession (“Possession Order”) and Order Upon Third Party Purchaser’s Motion for. Payment of Rent (“Payment Order”). In his appeal, Vita challenges these two final orders by asserting three distinct issues: (i) the trial court failed to properly determine Vita’s tenancy status; (ii) the trial court erred by granting a double remedy; and (iii) the trial court erred in entering the Payment Order against his wife, Kimberly Vita.

As to • the first and ■ second issues on appeal, we affirm without further discussion. As to the third issue on appeal, Vita asserts that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Vita’s wife, and therefore erred by including her in the Payment Order as if she were a defendant. We agree. Because Kimberly Vita was never named in the lawsuit and never received service of process, the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction to enter a judgment against her. See Synchron, Inc. v. Kogan, 757 So.2d 564, 565 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). .

We reverse the Payment Order and, remand for the entry of a revised payment order thát omits Kimberly Vita. We affirm the Payment Order and the Possession Order in all other respects.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 So. 3d 846, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 91, 2016 WL 66559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vita-v-stern-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack