GARY GOODENOW, ET AL.,
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
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.
The Goodenows appealed a trial court's denial of their motion to stay foreclosure proceedings, framing it as an appeal from an order denying an injunction. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that an order denying a motion to stay is not appealable as of right and does not invoke the court's jurisdiction, so the appeal was treated as a certiorari petition that was dismissed for failure to demonstrate material injury that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.
An order denying a motion to stay is distinct from an order denying an injunction and does not invoke the appellate court's jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). The appeal was treated as a petition for writ of certiorari, which requires demonstration of (1) a departure from the essential requirements of law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case, and (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal. The Goodenows failed to meet this burden.
[1] An order denying a motion to stay foreclosure proceedings is distinct from an order denying an injunction and does not invoke appellate jurisdiction under Florida Rule of…
[2] Appeals from orders denying motions to stay foreclosure proceedings may be treated as petitions for writ of certiorari.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“An order denying a motion to stay is different from an order denying an injunction, and, as such, does not invoke this Court's jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B).”
Establishes the court's jurisdictional holding that orders denying motions to stay are not appealable as of right
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary and Mary Goodenow sought to stay foreclosure proceedings in a trial court. The trial court denied their motion to stay. The Goodenows appealed, c…
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 Mortgage Foreclosure Cause Of Action cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendants Gary and Mary Goodenow appeal the trial court’s denial of their motion to stay the foreclosure proceedings below. Although the Goodenows couch the appeal as one taken from an order denying an injunction, that is simply not the case. An order denying a motion to stay is different from an order denying an injunction, and, as such, does not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(B). See, e.g., Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Patchen, 25 So. 3d 1283, 1284 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). “As such, we treat this appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari.” Learn v. Shackelford, 903 So. 2d 335, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citations omitted).
Certiorari review is available only when the petitioner has demonstrated “(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case[,] (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.” Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 454 (Fla. 2012) (quoting Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004)). The Goodenows have failed to meet this burden.1 “Because [the Goodenows] have not alleged that the trial court’s action here has resulted in a material injury to them that cannot be remedied on appeal, we do not have certiorari jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the petition.” Learn, 903 So. 2d at 336 (internal citations omitted).
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arc Global Invs., II, LLC v. Digit. World Acquisition Corp. (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
-
Haedo Transp. Solutions, LLC v. Signature Flight Support, LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Learn v. Shackelford, 903 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Dep't of Agric. & Consumer Servs. v. Patchen, 25 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)