ROY W. BRUCE
v.
U. S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC., AS TRUSTEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court properly denied Mr. Bruce's motion to quash service, and Mrs. Bruce lacks standing to appeal an order affecting only Mr. Bruce's motion.
[1] A nonparty to a motion lacks standing to appeal a nonfinal order denying that motion when the order does not directly or indirectly affect the nonparty's interests.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly.”
Court's explanation of standing doctrine, citing Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson.
U.S. Bank National Association brought a foreclosure action against Roy W. Bruce, Jr. and Alice Bruce individually and in their capacities as trustees…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Quash Service Of Process cases and more on FLexlaw
SLEET, Judge.
Roy W. Bruce, Jr., and Alice Bruce challenge the trial court's nonfinal order denying Mr. Bruce's motion to quash service against him individually in the foreclosure action brought by U.S. Bank National Association against the Bruces individually and in their capacities as trustees of the Roy W. Bruce, Jr., and Alice M.
Bruce Revocable Living Trust dated December 2011. We affirm the trial court's order as to Mr. Bruce without further comment. We dismiss this appeal as to Mrs. Bruce because the order on appeal denied a motion brought only by Mr. Bruce. Thus the order did not affect her, and she does not have standing to challenge it on appeal. See generally Hayes v. Guardianship of Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498, 505 (Fla. 2006) ("Standing is a legal concept that requires a would-be litigant to demonstrate that he or she reasonably expects to be affected by the outcome of the proceedings, either directly or indirectly."); cf. Ghali v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 1386, 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) ("[Appellant] lacks the requisite standing to appeal the denial of a nonparty's motion to quash substitute service of process.").
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part.
KELLY and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hayes v. Guardianship OF Mae E. Thompson, 952 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 2006)
- Nabil Ghali, M.D. v. Smith, 575 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)