Narrative Opinion Summary
The appeal is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, as indicated in the response to the Court’s order from September 20, 2010. The dismissal is supported by precedent, specifically citing Cunningham v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., which addresses the dismissal of an appeal related to abuse of process claims and consumer protection statutes when a related debt collection claim is still pending. The order in question does not qualify as a reviewable partial final judgment according to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k), referencing Jensen v. Whetstine. Judges DAVIS, HAWKES, and WETHERELL concur with this decision.
Legal Issues Addressed
Jurisdictional Requirements for Appealssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appeal was dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction, as the order did not meet the criteria for a reviewable final judgment.
Reasoning: The appeal is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction, as indicated in the response to the Court’s order from September 20, 2010.
Precedent in Dismissal of Appeals Involving Unresolved Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The precedent set in Cunningham v. MBNA America Bank, N.A. was cited to support the dismissal of the appeal, highlighting the issue of pending related claims.
Reasoning: The dismissal is supported by precedent, specifically citing Cunningham v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., which addresses the dismissal of an appeal related to abuse of process claims and consumer protection statutes when a related debt collection claim is still pending.
Reviewable Final Judgment under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The order being appealed does not qualify as a reviewable partial final judgment, preventing the appeal from proceeding.
Reasoning: The order in question does not qualify as a reviewable partial final judgment according to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(k), referencing Jensen v. Whetstine.