Summary
In Pierce v. Pierce, 46 So.3d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010), rev. denied,64 So.3d 1261 (Fla.2011) (table), we dismissed a direct appeal of this order for lack of jurisdiction since it was a non-appealable, non-final order.
Summary of this case from Pierce v. Pierce (In re Estate of Pierce)Opinion
No. 1D10-1872.
September 7, 2010. Rehearing Denied October 26, 2010.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County. Kenneth L. Williams, Judge.
Michael R. Rollo of Michael J. Rollo, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
Robert O. Beasley and Phillip Pugh of Litvak Beasley Wilson, LLP, Pensacola, for Appellee.
Upon consideration of the appellant's response to the Court's order of July 8, 2010, the Court has determined that the order on appeal, which denied a motion to enforce a mediated settlement agreement and set aside the agreement upon determining it was signed under duress, is not one which finally determines a right or obligation of an interested person in a probate matter. Thus, the order is not subject to immediate review pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In light of this dismissal, all pending motions are denied as moot.
DAVIS, BENTON, and CLARK, JJ., concur.