Case Name: Andrew J. MICHAELS, Appellant, v. Peter DuBOSE, Robert DuBose, Sally S. DuBose, Michael A. DuBose, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of William J. DuBose, Jr., Deceased, Great Northern Savings Company, Cardinal Federal Savings and Loan Association, Jane M. Pheneger, Mid-American Leasing, Inc., and United States of America, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1989-04-12
Citations: 542 So. 2d 415
Docket Number: Nos. 88-1189, 88-1251
Parties: Andrew J. MICHAELS, Appellant, v. Peter DuBOSE, Robert DuBose, Sally S. DuBose, Michael A. DuBose, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of William J. DuBose, Jr., Deceased, Great Northern Savings Company, Cardinal Federal Savings and Loan Association, Jane M. Pheneger, Mid-American Leasing, Inc., and United States of America, Appellees.
Judges: GLICKSTEIN, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 542
Pages: 415–415

Head Matter:
Andrew J. MICHAELS, Appellant, v. Peter DuBOSE, Robert DuBose, Sally S. DuBose, Michael A. DuBose, as Co-Personal Representatives of the Estate of William J. DuBose, Jr., Deceased, Great Northern Savings Company, Cardinal Federal Savings and Loan Association, Jane M. Pheneger, Mid-American Leasing, Inc., and United States of America, Appellees.
Nos. 88-1189, 88-1251.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 12, 1989.
Rehearing Denied May 24, 1989.
Andrew J. Michaels, Akron, Ohio, pro se.
Frederick M. Dahlmeier of Cromwell, Remsen, Pfaffenberger, Dahlmeier, Bamer & Griffin, North Palm Beach, for appellees-DuBose.
William S. Rose, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Gary R. Allen, Atty. Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee-U.S. of America.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of a judgment of foreclosure. We find no merit in appellant's points on appeal; however, we note concern over the finality vel non of the amended partial summary judgment. In reviewing the totality of the order it appears no judicial labor remains except any future enforcement or deficiency proceedings. The order under review is affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and POLEN, JJ., concur.