From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chase Federal Bank v. Kim

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 4, 1992
604 So. 2d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Opinion

No. 92-1912.

September 4, 1992.

Arthur J. England, Jr., Sheri L. Orlowitz, C. Ryan Reetz, and Gerald J. Houlihan of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen Quentel, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondents.


Chase Federal Bank seeks certiorari review of a partial summary judgment which in essence held that a variable interest rate note tied to the interest rate of United States Treasury Notes was not for a "sum certain" and for that reason not negotiable, and therefore Chase Federal could not be a holder in due course.

See section 673.104, Florida Statutes, prior to the 1991 amendment to section 673.106, Ch. 91-70, Laws of Fla. See also Ch. 92-82, Laws of Fla.

We deny the petition for certiorari not because such a variable interest rate note is not negotiable but because the issue should be raised in a direct plenary appeal from a final judgment and does not justify certiorari review of a non-final partial summary judgment.

DENIED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and PETERSON, JJ. concur.


Summaries of

Chase Federal Bank v. Kim

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Sep 4, 1992
604 So. 2d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)
Case details for

Chase Federal Bank v. Kim

Case Details

Full title:CHASE FEDERAL BANK, PETITIONER, v. YOUNG H. KIM, SOON JIN KIM, ET AL.…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Sep 4, 1992

Citations

604 So. 2d 909 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992)

Citing Cases

Holden Cove, v. 4 Mac Holdings

An order granting partial summary judgment on the issue of liability is not reviewable because the issue can…

Fernez v. Calabrese

Ordinarily, an order denying a motion for summary judgment is not reviewable by certiorari because there is…