TEREK DIASTI A/K/A DEREK DIASTI, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2013-09-25
No. 2D12-5582
NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
122 So. 3d 492 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2013) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases


Opinion of the Court
MORRIS, Judge.

MORRIS, Judge.

Terek Diasti a/k/a Derek Diasti appeals a nonfinal order that determines both that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over Diasti and that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over the cause of action. We have jurisdiction to review a nonfinal order that determines the jurisdiction over the person, Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i), and to the extent that the order on appeal deals with that issue, we affirm without further comment. However, to the extent that the order on appeal addresses subject matter jurisdiction, it is a nonfinal, nonappealable order. See Grasso v. Grasso, 113 So.3d 855, 856 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012); L.A.D. Prop. Ventures, Inc. v. First Bank, 19 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Hitt v. Homes & Land Brokers, Inc., 993 So.2d 1162, 1165 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). We therefore dismiss that portion of the appeal.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.

NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Iala Suarez v. Port Charlotte HMA, LLC, 171 So. 3d 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
    …the litigation between the parties.”). The order is not an appealable nonfinal order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 because it is an order determining the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Diasti v. Dep’t of Revenue, 122 So. 3d 492, 492 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (explaining that an order determining subject matter jurisdiction over the cause of action “is a nonfinal, nonappealable order”). On appeal, Suarez asks this court to order the trial court to hear her motion and resolve her d…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw