From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Malek v. Bright

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 4, 2009
7 So. 3d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

Summary

clarifying that a “sum of money” is property to which Rule 9.130(C) applies

Summary of this case from Higgins v. Ryan

Opinion

No. 3D07-2009.

March 25, 2009. Rehearing Denied May 4, 2009.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Margarita Esquiroz, Judge.

Arthur J. Morburger, Miami, for appellants.

Howard S. Grossman, Boca Raton, for appellees.

Before COPE, SHEPHERD, and SUAREZ, JJ.


Upon further review of the jurisdictional questions promulgated by this Court to the parties sua sponte in this case, we treat the appeal in this case as one taken from nonfinal orders which determine the right to immediate possession of property under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). See Greene v. Borsky, 961 So.2d 1057, 1058 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (stating that a sum of money is property to which Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) applies). We affirm the orders under review.


Summaries of

Malek v. Bright

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 4, 2009
7 So. 3d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

clarifying that a “sum of money” is property to which Rule 9.130(C) applies

Summary of this case from Higgins v. Ryan
Case details for

Malek v. Bright

Case Details

Full title:Rogelio MALEK, et al., Appellants, v. George BRIGHT, et al., Appellees

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 4, 2009

Citations

7 So. 3d 598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

Citing Cases

TRG-Brickell Point NE, Ltd. v. Wajsblat

SHEPHERD, J. This is a non-final appeal taken under Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B) and…

Terra-Adi Intr. v. Georgarious

Considering this proceeding as an authorized non-final appeal under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii), from an order…