ROBERT M. LILLQUIST AND JOYCE C. LILLQUIST, APPELLANTS,
v.
LIBERTYVILLE NATIONAL BANK, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
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.
The court dismissed an interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Rule 4.2(a) concerning jurisdiction in interlocutory appeals refers to the jurisdiction of the Florida court from which the appeal is taken, not the jurisdiction of the Illinois court that entered the underlying judgment.
Rule 4.2(a), F.A.R. granting interlocutory appeal rights for orders relating to jurisdiction refers to the jurisdiction of the Florida court from which the appeal is taken, not the jurisdiction of the court that entered the underlying judgment being enforced.
[1] Rule 4.2(a), F.A.R. …
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 intelligenceAppellants sought to enforce an Illinois judgment entered on a cognovit note in Florida court and appealed the denial of summary judgment, claiming th…
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 Enforcement Of Foreign Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
MANN, Chief Judge.
The threshold question is whether we have jurisdiction. This is an interlocutory appeal from an order denying summary judgment in an action brought in a Florida court to enforce an Illinois judgment entered on a cognovit note in an action in which appellants now claim the Illinois court lacked jurisdiction. The Florida court’s jurisdiction is conceded. Rule 4.-2(a), F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., grants a‘right to interlocutory appeal as to “interlocutory orders relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person.” Appellant states that there is no case holding that this necessarily refers to the jurisdiction of the Florida court. There is now. We think the clear meaning of the rule, read as a whole, compels the inference that it is the Florida court from which the appeal is taken whose jurisdiction is referred to. We need not now determine whether the Illinois court had jurisdiction or otherwise erred in some way affording appellants a valid defense.
Treating the appeal papers as a petition for certiorari, certiorari is denied. The order denying summary judgment is not clearly erroneous, and no reason appears for our consideration of the merits. See D. H. Overmyer Co. v. Frick Co., 1972, 405 U.S. 174, 92 S.Ct. 775, 31 L.Ed.2d 124.
Appeal dismissed.
HOBSON and GRIMES, JJ., concur.