BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A., SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO BARNETT BANK OF BROWARD COUNTY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
STATEWIDE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A/K/A STATE WIDE MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A/K/A STATEWIDE MORTGAGE CORP., A/K/A STATE WIDE MORTGAGE CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; HOMESITES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; ETC., ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Certiorari petition denied where trial court denied motion to amend complaint to allege breach of underlying mortgage agreement, as petitioner failed to demonstrate the order was a departure from essential requirements of law with no adequate appellate remedy.
A trial court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint is not reviewable by certiorari merely because the petitioner will incur trial expenses and potential need for a second trial.
[1] Certiorari review of an interlocutory order denying a motion to amend a complaint requires demonstration that the order departs from essential requirements of law produci…
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 intelligenceBarnett Bank sought to foreclose a mortgage against Statewide Mortgage Corporation and others. Respondents' answer disclosed an underlying agreement b…
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
This petition for writ of certiorari seeks review of an order denying a motion to amend the complaint. Petitioner sought to foreclose a mortgage. Respondents in their answer disclosed an underlying agree ment between the parties not referred to in the complaint. The parties apparently are in accord that in the absence of a breach of this underlying agreement petitioner would not be entitled to foreclose. The motion to amend the complaint to allege such a breach came at a time when the litigation was in a state of indefinite continuance.
We have held on numerous occasions that in order to invoke certiorari, petitioner must demonstrate that the order at issue is a departure from the essential requirements of law producing a result for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. E.g., Keehn v. Joseph C. Mackey and Co., 420 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). That the petitioner “will have gone through a trial under the burden of the order complained of, incur substantial expenses for experts, etc., and because resolution of the issue now on appeal might preclude the necessity of a second trial,” is an insufficient basis for obtaining a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order. Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So. 2d 234, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
LETTS and BARKETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Grandstaff, 927 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…Rules, but are thwarted in obtaining relief due to circumstances beyond their control. The trial court acted within the essential requirements of the law in granting Grandstaff s motion. See Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A. v. Statewide Mortgage Corp., 464 So. 2d 187, 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). We conclude that the issue presented by this appeal is one of great public importance and has a great effect on the proper administration of justice. Therefore, we certify the following question to the Florida Supreme Cour…
Authorities Cited
- Humphrey v. Seminole Cnty. Court, 309 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Keehn v. Joseph C. MacKey & Co., 420 So. 2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)