MARIA H. SANCHEZ, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, APPELLANT,
v.
ALBERT FENTON MASTERHAN, DORIS KING, APPELLEE
MARIA H. SANCHEZ, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, APPELLANT,
ALBERT FENTON MASTERHAN, DORIS KING, APPELLEE
837 So. 2d 1161
Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2003)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order, dated December 17, 2002, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, Order on Motion to Dismiss Supplemental Petition for Revocation of Probate of Will, dated October 15, 2002, does not “finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person,” Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(a)(2) (emphasis added), where it merely denies a motion to dismiss, and does not revoke the probate of the will. The appellant’s January 14, 2002, Motion for Thirty Day Extension of Time to File Appellants’ Initial Brief, is denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Edelstein v. Beagell, 7 So. 3d 564 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…rder on appeal did not “finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person,” so as to be appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). See Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sanchez v. Masterhan, 837 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The appellee’s “Motion to Dismiss and/or Require Appellant to Properly Designate the Record on Appeal,” filed on January 15, 2008, as well as the “Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Initial Brief,” filed on Janua…
-
Somogyi v. Nevai, 920 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…l and [*829] Related Relief’ does not finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person under Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(a)(2), where it merely denies a motion to dismiss and does not revoke the probate of the will. See Sanchez v. Masterhan, 837 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Dismissed. WARNER, TAYLOR and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. & Robert J. Lowe, Sr. v. The Governor OF Fla., 23 So. 3d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)….” We are bound by this decision. Moreover, we note that we dismissed an appeal from an order denying a motion to dismiss a petition in Somogyi v. Nevai, 920 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The first district ruled similarly in Sanchez v. Masterhan, 837 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). In re Estate of Pavlick, 697 So. 2d 157 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), cited by appellants, is distinguishable and unpersuasive authority in this case. The denial of the motions to dismiss in this case merely decided that appellees had st…