PATEL
v.
WILMINGTON SAVINGS
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.
A nonfinal order denying a motion to quash constructive service of process in a foreclosure action is not appealable when the trial court relied solely on in rem jurisdiction without establishing personal jurisdiction over the defendants.
[1] A nonfinal order denying a motion to quash constructive service of process is not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) when the trial co…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHasmukhbai Patel and Hemuben Patel were defendants in a foreclosure action brought by Wilmington Savings Bank. The trial court denied their motion to …
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 Constructive Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hasmukhbai Patel and Hemuben Patel appeal the trial court’s nonfinal order denying their motion to quash constructive service of process in the foreclosure action brought by Wilmington Savings Bank, FSB, as Trustee for Stanwich Mortgage Loan Trust
A (“the Bank”), against the Patels. Because the trial court did not rule that it obtained personal jurisdiction over the Patels, but instead determined only that it had in rem jurisdiction, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this nonfinal order and we dismiss the appeal. See Archer v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 220 So. 3d 477, 478-79 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (dismissing appeal because nonfinal order denying mortgagor’s motion to quash constructive service of process did not refer to personal jurisdiction and no assertion of personal jurisdiction was made in trial court); Koniecpolski v. Stelnicki, 571 So. 2d 577,
578 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (dismissing appeal because Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.130(a)(3)(C)(i) does not vest jurisdiction in this Court over nonfinal order denying motion to quash constructive service of process in foreclosure proceeding when order does not determine jurisdiction of person).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
SAWAYA, ORFINGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Archer v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 220 So. 3d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)
- Marek Koniecpolski v. Stelnicki, 571 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)