JOSEPH MICELI AND MARIA MICELI, APPELLANTS,
v.
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., APPELLEE
JOSEPH MICELI AND MARIA MICELI, APPELLANTS,
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., APPELLEE
193 So. 3d 12
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2016)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion of the Court
Because the appellants have not preserved the claim of error for review, we affirm the non-final order on appeal, which determines that the motion to quash service of process was moot. However, before the trial court rules on the pending motion to quash re-service of process, it *13must determine the validity of the original service of process from 2014. See Vidal v. SunTrust Bank, 41 So.3d 401, 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (“The validity of the original service must first be determined before the trial court can rule on the pending motion [to quash the second service].”).
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cruz v. Citimortgage, Inc., 197 So. 3d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)…support the petitioner’s position that service of an alias or pluries summons is unauthorized where a challenge to prior service remains pending. The petitioner also refers to our recent opinion in Miceli v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co., N.A., 193 So. 3d 12, 12 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016), in which we affirmed an order determining that a motion to quash service of process was moot based on “re-service” of a subsequent summons. There, the alleged error was not preserved for appeal. Id. To the extent Vidal and M…
Authorities Cited
- Vidal v. Suntrust Bank, 41 So. 3d 401 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)