41
Fla. L. Weekly D2456bTop of Form

Appeals
— Appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review non-appealable interlocutory
order denying motion for reconsideration of order denying motion to quash
service of process

PETER
M. VUJIN, Appellant, vs. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, As Trustee, etc.,
Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D16-1684. L.T. Case No. 14-31994. Opinion
filed November 2, 2016. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County,
Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge. Counsel: Peter M. Vujin, in proper person.
Buckley Madole, P.C., and J. Chris Abercrombie (Tampa), for appellee.

(Before
WELLS, SHEPHERD and SCALES, JJ.)

ON
APPELLANT’S MOTION SEEKING REHEARING,

CLARIFICATION,
AND CERTIFICATION

OF
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

(PER
CURIAM.) While the abbreviated record before this Court is unclear, it appears
that Peter M. Vujin, the Appellant and defendant below, was served via
publication in this foreclosure case. Appellant apparently filed a motion to
quash service and, on January 27, 2016, the trial court conducted a hearing and
entered an order denying Appellant’s motion without prejudice. According to
Appellant, this January 27, 2016 appealable, non-final order1 was not served on Appellant until
March 16, 2016, obviously too late for Appellant to have timely appealed this
order.2

Again,
while not entirely clear from the record, it appears that, on March 23, 2016,
Appellant filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the trial court’s January
27, 2016 order. The trial court denied this motion for reconsideration on June
15, 2016, for reasons apparently articulated at the June 15th hearing (the
transcript has not been provided to us). Appellant has sought to appeal this
June 15th order. After providing the parties with an opportunity to brief the
jurisdictional issue, we dismissed Appellant’s appeal because we lack
jurisdiction to review this June 15th non-appealable interlocutory order. Stok
v. Cabrera, 774 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (Mem); Fla. R. App. P.
9.130(a)(3).

We,
therefore, deny Appellant’s instant motion seeking rehearing, clarification and
certification of our dismissal order.

__________________

1See
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).

2Appellant
is not precluded from challenging this order at the conclusion of the case. See
Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h).

* *
*