GOLDIE ETTE NEALE, AS EXECUTRIX FOR THE ESTATE OF NAZZARENO IOVANNA, APPELLANT,
v.
THE REDINS CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 held that an order denying a motion to dismiss, in an action formerly cognizable at law, is not subject to interlocutory appeal.
Appellee sued appellant as personal representative of an estate for monies due under a lease. Appellant moved to dismiss, arguing the suit was untimel…
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 Jurisdiction Over The Person cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court in an action formerly cognizable at law denying appellant’s motion to dismiss.
Appellee sued appellant as personal representative of the Estate of Nazzareno lo-vanna to recover monies due pursuant to a lease. A motion to dismiss was directed to the complaint upon the ground that although appellee had filed a claim against the decedent’s estate and objection had been filed thereto, appellee had not commenced this suit within the time required by § 733.18(2), F.S. 1973. The trial court denied said motion and this appeal ensued.
Upon consideration of the briefs and record we are of the opinion that the order in question cannot be made the subject of an interlocutory appeal. The complaint involves subject matter formerly cognizable at law and the order denying the appellant’s motion to dismiss is neither a final judgment, nor an order relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person, nor an order granting partial summary judgment on liability.
We are cognizant of two cases from the Third District Court of Appeal wherein that court entertained interlocutory appeals in cases which appear to be factually simi lar to this one sub judice. Grayson v. Maeder, Fla.App.1971, 247 So. 2d 774; Poncier v. State, Dept. of Health & Rehab. Serv., etc., Fla.App. 1973, 284 So. 2d 463. However, we are unaware of the basis upon which that court determined it had jurisdiction in those cases.
Believing as we do that this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the matter in its present posture, we dismiss this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bowl Am. Fla., Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…ctness of the trial court’s order on appeal justifies this Court’s acceptance of certiorari jurisdiction. These grounds are not sufficient to justify certio-rari review. Whiteside v. Johnson, 351 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Neale v. Redins Corp., 320 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). Under Rule 4.2 of the now superseded Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, numerous cases reached the District Courts of Appeal concerning the refusal of lower courts to dismiss cases for failure to prosecute. See Greyhound Cor…
Authorities Cited
- Poncier v. State, 284 So. 2d 463 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Grayson v. Gertrudis Maeder, 247 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)