With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". CURIAM. Upon consideration of the appellant’s responses to the Court’s orders of September 2, 2003, and September 30, 2003, the Court has determined that because the appellant was never made a party to the proceedings below, the appellant does not have standing to maintain the appeal. See Forcum v. Symmes, 101 Fla. 1266, 133 So. 88 (1931)(<HOLDING>); see also Stas v. Posada, 760 So.2d 954 (Fla.

A: holding that when an appellate court determines that it lacks jurisdiction the only thing it can do is dismiss the appeal
B: holding that it is a fundamental principle of appellate law that appeal jurisdiction is only available to parties
C: holding that it is not
D: holding that lack of appellate jurisdiction is fundamental error
B.