
    CHASE FEDERAL BANK, Petitioner, v. Young H. KIM, Soon Jin Kim, et al., Respondents.
    No. 92-1912.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Sept. 4, 1992.
    Arthur J. England, Jr., Sheri L. Orlowitz, C. Ryan Reetz, and Gerald J. Houlihan of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Ro-sen & Quentel, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.
    No appearance for respondents.
   PER CURIAM.

Chase Federal Bank seeks certiorari review of a partial summary judgment which in essence held that a variable interest rate note tied to the interest rate of United States Treasury Notes was not for a “sum certain” and for that reason not negotiable, and therefore Chase Federal could not be a holder in due course.

We deny the petition for certiorari not because such a variable interest rate note is not negotiable but because the issue should be raised in a direct plenary appeal from a final judgment and does not justify certiorari review of a non-final partial summary judgment.

DENIED.

GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART and PETERSON, JJ. concur. 
      
      . See section 673.104, Florida Statutes, prior to the 1991 amendment to section 673.106, Ch. 91-70, Laws of Fla. See also Ch. 92-82, Laws of Fla.
     