BONNIE BARNETT, UNDER CONDITIONAL ASSIGNMENT OF RIGHT TO APPEAL BY CITIBANK, F.S.B., APPELLANT,
v.
ELLIOTT BARNETT, ATLAS, PEARLMAN, TROP & BORKSON, P.A., AND BUNNELL, WOULFE, KIRSCHBAUM, KELLER & MCINTYRE, APPELLEES
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.
Citibank assigned its right to appeal an adverse order denying priority of its lien to the wife in a dissolution action. The court dismissed the appeal because Citibank, as a non-party to the dissolution proceedings, lacked standing to appeal, and the wife as assignee stood in Citibank's shoes and therefore also lacked standing.
A non-party lacks standing to appeal an order in a case in which it was not a party, and an assignee of such appeal rights stands in the non-party's shoes and therefore also lacks standing to appeal.
[1] A non-party to a legal action generally lacks standing to appeal an order entered in that action.
[2] An assignee of a party's rights stands in the shoes of the assignor and possesses no greater rights than the assignor had.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The wife, as assignee, stands in the shoes of Citibank. Since Citibank was not a party in the dissolution action below, it had no standing to appeal the adverse order.”
Establishes the core holding that an assignee of appeal rights cannot cure a non-party's lack of standing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a dissolution action, Citibank moved ore tenus to establish priority of its lien over the parties' attorneys with respect to proceeds from the …
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 Assignee Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
ON APPELLEES’ MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM.
This appeal arose from a dissolution action in the court below. Citibank moved ore ten-us in the dissolution action to establish the priority of its lien over that of the parties’ attorneys with respect to the proceeds of the sale of a Botero sculpture. Citibank was not a party to the proceedings below; it moved neither to intervene nor to consolidate its pending foreclosure case with the dissolution action. The trial court denied Citibank’s ore tenus motion for priority of its lien in an order dated July 29,1997. Citibank assigned to the wife any rights it might have had to appeal the order denying it priority, and it is in her capacity as assignee that the wife filed the instant appeal.
Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is well taken. The wife, as assignee, stands in the shoes of Citibank. Since Citibank was not a party in the dissolution action below, it had no standing to appeal the adverse order. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(f)(1) defines “[a]ppellant” as a “party who seeks to invoke the appeal jurisdiction of a court.” (Emphasis supplied). The general rule is that a non-party is a “stranger to the record” who cannot “transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court.” Forcum v. Symmes, 101 Fla. 1266, 138 So. 88 (1931). See also Estate of Maltie v. State, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Orange County, Florida v. Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 397 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
In re Receivership of Guarantee Security Life Insurance Co., 678 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), upon which appellant relies, presents a unique factual situation which is not present in this case. In Guarantee Security, a court entered an order in a receivership proceeding which curtailed certain litigants’ ability to conduct discovery in a separate lawsuit. The first district ruled that even though the litigants were not parties to the statutory receivership proceeding, they had standing on appeal to challenge the order that directly impacted the development of the case in which they were named defendants. Guarantee Security is best read as a narrow exception to the general rule that a non-party has no standing to appeal an order in a case.
Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is granted and the appeal is dismissed as to all parties.
GROSS, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Portfolio Invs. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…e Association. Under the unique circumstances of this case, we disagree. Generally, a non-party in the lower tribunal is a “stranger to the record” and, therefore, lacks standing to appeal an order entered by the lower tribunal. Barnett v. Barnett, 705 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (holding that bank that failed to intervene “was not a party to the proceeding below,” and therefore, “has no standing to appeal the adverse order”); see also Fla. R.App.P. 9.020(g)(1) (defining “appellant” as “[a] party who…
-
Bondi v. Tucker, 93 So. 3d 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…ncerned Class Members[ v. Sailfish Point, Inc., 704 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) ].”). With rare exception, failure to participate as a party in the lower tribunal precludes the ability to invoke appellate proceedings. See Barnett v. Barnett, 705 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“The general rule is that a non-party is a ‘stranger to the record’ who cannot ‘transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court.’ ” (quoting Forcum v. Symmes, 101 Fla. 1266, 133 So. 88 (1931))). But see Smith v. Chepolis, 896 S…
-
Rivas v. Prof'l Prot. & Investigations Agency, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ppeal from a . . . judgment will be dismissed where there is nothing in it prejudicial to the claimed rights of the appellant.”); Portfolio Invs. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 534, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting Barnett v. Barnett, 705 So. 2d 63, 64 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)) (“[A] non-party in the lower tribunal is a ‘stranger to the record’ and, therefore, lacks standing to appeal an order entered by the lower tribunal.”).…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Forcum v. Symmes, 133 So. 88 (Fla. 1931)
- King v. State, 404 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Orange Cnty. v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm'n, 397 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- In re the Receivership OF Guar. Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. State, 678 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)