WEISS v. DAYTONA GRAND, INC., 197 So.3d 1139 (2016)
Court: Court of Appeals of Florida
Number: inflco20160624154
Visitors: 11
Filed: Jun. 24, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 24, 2016
Summary: PER CURIAM . Miles Weiss appeals the order entered by the trial court denying his motion to intervene and issuing a temporary injunction in favor of Daytona Grand, Inc. Although filed as an appeal of a non-final order, we sua sponte have reviewed this case as a final appeal, in that the denial of a motion to intervene is a final appealable order. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So.3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). 1 Determining that no abuse of discretion by the trial court
Summary: PER CURIAM . Miles Weiss appeals the order entered by the trial court denying his motion to intervene and issuing a temporary injunction in favor of Daytona Grand, Inc. Although filed as an appeal of a non-final order, we sua sponte have reviewed this case as a final appeal, in that the denial of a motion to intervene is a final appealable order. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So.3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010). 1 Determining that no abuse of discretion by the trial court ..
More
PER CURIAM.
Miles Weiss appeals the order entered by the trial court denying his motion to intervene and issuing a temporary injunction in favor of Daytona Grand, Inc. Although filed as an appeal of a non-final order, we sua sponte have reviewed this case as a final appeal, in that the denial of a motion to intervene is a final appealable order. See Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So.3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).1 Determining that no abuse of discretion by the trial court has been shown, we affirm the denial of the motion to intervene. In light of that determination, Weiss lacks standing to challenge the temporary injunction order. See Mkt. Tampa Invs., LLC v. Stobaugh, 177 So.3d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015).
AFFIRMED.
PALMER, TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
FootNotes
1. The appendices filed by the parties provided the court with an adequate basis upon which to decide the case and, therefore, the court did not order a record to be transmitted.
Source: Leagle
