ASTRA REMY-CALIXTE,
v.
HARVARD FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, ET AL.,
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.
This case involves an appeal from a trial court's order enforcing a prior appellate mandate. The appellate court had previously voided a foreclosure judgment and sale, and on remand, the trial court dissolved an injunction. The current appeal challenges the dissolution of the injunction and the handling of remaining equitable claims.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the injunction pursuant to the appellate mandate. Challenges to non-injunctive aspects of the order were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as they were non-final and non-appealable.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in handling proceedings after a case is reversed and remanded with general directions for further proceedings.
[2] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by dissolving an injunction when carrying out an appellate court's mandate, provided the action is consistent with the mandate…
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“When a case is reversed and remanded with general directions for further proceedings, the lower tribunal is vested with broad discretion in handling or directing the course of the proceedings thereafter.”
This quote establishes the legal principle regarding the discretion of a lower court after an appellate remand.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a prior appeal, the court found that the trial court erred in vacating orders, which invalidated a foreclosure judgment and sale. The case was rema…
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 Jurisdiction Over Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
EMAS, C.J.
Astra Remy-Calixte appeals the trial court’s nonfinal order granting Harvard Financial Services, LLC and Tessa Iacoboni’s motion to enforce this court’s mandate from the prior appeal in Harvard Fin. Servs., LLC v. Remy-Calixte, 283 So. 3d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). We held, in that earlier appeal, that the trial court erred in granting Remy-Calixte’s motions to vacate two prior trial court orders. We further held that, as a result of this error, the foreclosure judgment entered in Remy-Calixte’s favor was invalid, and that the subsequent foreclosure sale was void. Id. at 851-52.
We reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. Id. at 852. On remand, the trial court, pursuant to our mandate, vacated the prior final summary judgment entered in Remy-Calixte’s favor and voided her title to the property.
The trial court also dissolved the existing injunction against appellees so they could enforce their respective claims.
On appeal from that order, Remy-Calixte contends the trial court erred in dissolving the injunction and in doing so without consideration of the remaining, equitable claims from her complaint.1
When a case is reversed and remanded with general directions for further proceedings, the lower tribunal is vested with broad discretion in handling or directing the course of the proceedings thereafter. Lucom v. Potter, 131 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1961); Brennan v. Brennan, 184 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Collins v. State, 680 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
See also Corkidi v. Franco Invs., LLC, 201 So. 3d 52, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (observing: “A trial court has the latitude to comply with an appellate court's implicit rather than explicit suggestions in the opinion.”) Upon our review of the record, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dissolving the injunction pursuant to its obligation to carry out this court’s mandate, nor did it act contrary to or inconsistent with this court’s mandate in the prior appeal.
We find the other arguments raised by Remy-Calixte are without merit.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
813 So. 2d 278, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) and Hancock v. Suwannee Cty. Sch. Bd., 149 So. 3d 1188, 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Earnest Stanberry, Jr. v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Virginia Willys Lucom (formerly Virginia Willys de Landa) v. Fay Hall Potter, 131 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1961)
- Collins v. State, 680 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Hancock v. Suwannee Cnty. Sch. Bd. & Fla. Sch. Bd. Ins., 149 So. 3d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Brennan v. Brennan, 184 So. 3d 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Aaoep USA, Inc. v. PEX German OE Parts, LLC, 202 So. 3d 470 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Corkidi v. Franco Invs., LLC, 201 So. 3d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)