Vujin v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Vujin v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

201 So. 3d 861, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16200

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 2, 2016

Docket3D16-1684

StatusPublished

This text of 201 So. 3d 861 (Vujin v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n) 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

Vujin v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n, 201 So. 3d 861, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16200 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION SEEKING REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, AND CERTIFICATION OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL

While the abbreviated record before this Court is unclear, it appears that Peter M. Vujin, the Appellant and defendant below, was served via publication in this foreclosure case. Appellant apparently filed a motion to quash service and, on January 27, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing and entered an order denying Appellant’s motion without prejudice. According to Appellant, this January 27, 2016 appealable, non-final order 1 was not served on Appellant until March 16, 2016, obviously too late for Appellant to have timely appealed this order. 2

Again, while not entirely clear from the record, it appears that, on March 23, 2016, Appellant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the trial court’s January 27, 2016 order. The trial court denied this motion for reconsideration on June 15, 2016, for reasons apparently articulated at the June 15th hearing (the transcript has not been provided to us). Appellant has sought to appeal this June 15th order. After providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the jurisdictional issue, we dismissed Appellant’s appeal because we lack jurisdic *862 tion to review this June 15th non-appeal-able interlocutory order. Stok v. Cabrera, 774 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Mem); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3).

We, therefore, deny Appellant’s instant motion seeking rehearing, clarification and certification of our dismissal order.

1

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

2

. Appellant is not precluded from challenging this order at the conclusion of the case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h).

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

PER CURIAM.

ON APPELLANT’S MOTION SEEKING REHEARING, CLARIFICATION, AND CERTIFICATION OF ORDER OF DISMISSAL

While the abbreviated record before this Court is unclear, it appears that Peter M. Vujin, the Appellant and defendant below, was served via publication in this foreclosure case. Appellant apparently filed a motion to quash service and, on January 27, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing and entered an order denying Appellant’s motion without prejudice. According to Appellant, this January 27, 2016 appealable, non-final order 1 was not served on Appellant until March 16, 2016, obviously too late for Appellant to have timely appealed this order. 2

Again, while not entirely clear from the record, it appears that, on March 23, 2016, Appellant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the trial court’s January 27, 2016 order. The trial court denied this motion for reconsideration on June 15, 2016, for reasons apparently articulated at the June 15th hearing (the transcript has not been provided to us). Appellant has sought to appeal this June 15th order. After providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the jurisdictional issue, we dismissed Appellant’s appeal because we lack jurisdic *862 tion to review this June 15th non-appeal-able interlocutory order. Stok v. Cabrera, 774 So.2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Mem); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3).

We, therefore, deny Appellant’s instant motion seeking rehearing, clarification and certification of our dismissal order.

1

. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

2

. Appellant is not precluded from challenging this order at the conclusion of the case. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

201 So. 3d 861, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vujin-v-us-bank-national-assn-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack