MAREK KONIECPOLSKI, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS D. STELNICKI, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Marek Koniecpolski appealed the denial of his motions to quash constructive service of process and to discharge court-appointed representatives in a real property foreclosure action. The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal because the trial court's order was non-final and did not establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant, placing it outside the appellate court's jurisdiction to review.
The appeal is dismissed because the trial court's order is non-final and does not determine that personal jurisdiction was properly invoked. The trial court merely denied the motions; it did not establish personal jurisdiction, so the appeal does not fall within the appellate court's authority to review non-final orders determining jurisdiction of the person.
[1] An appeal from a non-final order denying a motion to quash constructive service of process is not authorized by the rules of appellate procedure.
[2] A non-final order denying a motion to discharge a guardian ad litem, attorney ad litem, or administrator ad litem is not an appealable order.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Koniecpolski attempts to invoke the jurisdiction of this court through Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that the district court may review non-final orders of lower tribunals which determine jurisdiction of the person.”
Establishes the appellate rule Koniecpolski relied upon to appeal a non-final order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStelnicki filed a foreclosure action against Koniecpolski, a New Jersey resident, regarding an agreement for deed on Hernando County real property. Pe…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Foreclosure Of Agreement For Deed cases and more on FLexlaw
PETERSON, Judge.
Marek Koniecpolski appeals a non-final order denying his motions to quash service of process and to discharge the court-appointed guardian ad litem, attorney ad li-tem, and administrator ad litem. We dismiss the appeal.
Stelnicki filed an action to foreclose an agreement for deed on real property in Hernando County against Koniecpolski and another defendant not participating in this appeal. Stelnicki attempted to gain personal service of process upon Koniecpolski, a resident of Fairlawn, New Jersey, but was unable to do so. A special deputy sheriff in New Jersey returned a certificate indicating that, although he made numerous attempts, he was unable to serve Koniec-polski at the address set forth in the summons. Stelnicki then followed the procedure to obtain constructive service of process and, when no answer was received, applied for and received from the trial court an order appointing a guardian ad litem, an attorney ad litem, and an administrator ad litem. Koniecpolski made a special appearance by filing his motion to quash service of process and to discharge the guardian ad litem, attorney ad litem, and administrator ad litem appointed for him and for the benefit of all persons claiming by or through him. It is from the denial of these two motions that his appeal was filed. Koniecpolski’s notice of appeal provides, inter alia, that the “nature of the orders from which this appeal is taken are non-final orders determining that this court’s jurisdiction over the person of this defendant/appellant has been properly invoked....”
Koniecpolski attempts to invoke the jurisdiction of this court through Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that the district court may review non-final orders of lower tribunals which determine jurisdiction of the person. While Koniecpolski’s notice of appeal indicates the court determined that jurisdiction was attained over Koniecpolski, an examination of the trial court’s order indicates that Koniecpolski’s motions merely were denied. Koniecpolski’s motion requested that constructive service be quashed, not personal service; there is no claim by Stelnicki that personal jurisdiction was ever acquired.
Since the rules of appellate procedure do not authorize review of this non-final order, the appeal is dismissed.
DISMISSED.
DAUKSCH and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Archer v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 220 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
-
Helga Ronco and Thomas Modic v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., 123 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(e)(i); Koniecpolski v. Stelnicki, 571 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (explaining that appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review order denying motion to quash service of process via publication where there is no claim by the appellant that personal jurisdiction was ever acquired). SAWAYA, PALM…
-
Boca Stel, LLC v. Homei Chen & Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 153 So. 3d 995 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Koniecpolski v. Stel-nicki, 571 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). TORPY, C.J., PALMER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence