SAMUELS v. TANKEL, 162 So.3d 156 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20150123269
Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 19, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 19, 2015
Summary: PER CURIAM . Neil Samuels petitions the court for certiorari review of an order of the circuit court rendered in its appellate capacity. That order dismissed Samuels' appeal in a foreclosure matter. Although petitioner argues at length that the underlying foreclosure proceeding in the county court was flawed in several respects, the circuit court did not reach the merits of those arguments. Instead, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because Samuels' notice of ap
Summary: PER CURIAM . Neil Samuels petitions the court for certiorari review of an order of the circuit court rendered in its appellate capacity. That order dismissed Samuels' appeal in a foreclosure matter. Although petitioner argues at length that the underlying foreclosure proceeding in the county court was flawed in several respects, the circuit court did not reach the merits of those arguments. Instead, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because Samuels' notice of app..
More
PER CURIAM.
Neil Samuels petitions the court for certiorari review of an order of the circuit court rendered in its appellate capacity. That order dismissed Samuels' appeal in a foreclosure matter. Although petitioner argues at length that the underlying foreclosure proceeding in the county court was flawed in several respects, the circuit court did not reach the merits of those arguments. Instead, it concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because Samuels' notice of appeal was not filed in a timely fashion.
We conclude that Samuels has failed to demonstrate any error in the circuit court's conclusion that it did not possess jurisdiction to entertain the merits of his appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) and 9.130(b) (requiring that an appellate court's jurisdiction be invoked by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the appealable order for which review is sought). Because the circuit court's ruling therefore does not amount to a violation of clearly established principles of law, we are compelled to deny his request for certiorari review. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885 (Fla.2003).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.
ROBERTS, RAY, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Source: Leagle
