FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, N.A., ALDEN POND, INC., USX CREDIT, A DIVISION OF USX CREDIT CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION; BANCO EXTERIOR DE ESPANA, S.A., A FOREIGN BANK; BANCO BILBAO VIZCAYA, S.A., A FOREIGN BANK, PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS,
v.
PEOPLES NATIONAL BANK OF COMMERCE, MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS/APPELLEES
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.
First Union National Bank and other defendants appealed a trial court order that dismissed defendant Alden Pond from the complaint but retained it as an indispensable party and ordered it to hold sale proceeds in escrow. The appellate court reversed the injunctive escrow provisions as improperly entered sua sponte without required pleadings and notice, but denied certiorari review of the dismissal portion.
The court reversed the injunctive aspects of the order because it was entered sua sponte without required pleadings and notice. The court denied the petition for certiorari as to the dismissal portion, finding the dismissal was without prejudice and that defendants had an adequate remedy by appeal and were not irreparably injured.
[1] Injunctive relief entered sua sponte by a court must be accompanied by required pleadings and notice.
[2] A dismissal by the court is presumed to be without prejudice unless otherwise specified in the order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“this injunctive relief was entered sua sponte by the court in the absence of required pleadings and notice”
Establishes the basis for reversing the injunctive aspects of the order—lack of proper procedural requirements.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court granted defendant Alden Pond's motion to dismiss the only count naming it as a defendant. However, the court sua sponte then ordered t…
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 Sua Sponte Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal and a petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by the defendant First Union National Bank of Florida, N.A., Alden Pond, Inc., and other defendants below, from a trial court order which granted the defendant Alden Pond’s motion to dismiss the only count of the complaint in which Alden Pond is named as a defendant, and sua sponte ordered as follows: “The court, however, finds ALDEN POND to be an indispensable party and stakeholder and hereby orders that it remain a party to the lawsuit. ALDEN POND is hereby granted permission to sell the real property at issue in this litigation provided it holds in escrow or in an attorney’s trust account, pending further order of the Court or the ultimate resolution of the issues raised in the lawsuit, all the funds from the sale. The plaintiff shall be kept informed of all matters pertaining to the property and its sale.”
First, we have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the injunctive aspects of the above order — to wit: that portion of the subject order directing the defendant Alden Pond to hold in escrow or in an attorney’s trust account any proceeds from the sale of the real property in litigation below pending further order of the court — under Fla. R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B), as authorized by Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution. We, accordingly, reverse the injunctive aspects of the subject order, upon the commendable confession of error filed herein by the plaintiff/appellee Peoples National Bank of Commerce, Miami, because, without dispute, this injunctive relief was entered sua sponte by the court in the absence of required pleadings and notice. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(a); Camji v. Helmsley, 602 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Shouman v. American Express Travel Belated Servs. Co., 566 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Soffer v. Leopold, 531 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988).
Second, we deny the defendants’ petition for a writ of certiorari as to the balance of the order under review. Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. Contrary to the defendants’ argument, the trial court’s order dismissing the defendant Alden Pond was not with prejudice, and, accordingly, the court did not lose jurisdiction over Alden Pond. This is so because the subject order does not indicate whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice; therefore, the dismissal was, in legal effect, without prejudice to the plaintiff to file an amended complaint against Alden Pond, which, in fact, has been accomplished. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(2) (“Unless otherwise specified in the order [of dismissal], a dismissal [by the court] is without prejudice.”).
Beyond that, we conclude that the defendants otherwise have an adequate remedy by appeal and are not irreparably injured by the balance of the subject order, thereby disentitling them to certiorari review here. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987); Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla.1957).
Moreover, we do not agree that this portion of the order is otherwise reviewable by appeal under any of the provisions of Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a), as authorized by Article V, § 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
The injunctive aspects of the order under review are therefore reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to strike such provisions from the order. In all other respects, we deny the petition for a writ of certiorari as to the balance of the order under review.
Reversed in part; certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
W.J. Spradley, Jr. v. OLD Harmony Baptist Church, 721 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…did not request an injunction. Accordingly, the language in the order following the denial of appellants’ motion for temporary injunction constitutes an injunction that was not requested. See First Union Nat’l Bank v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)(reversing injunctive aspects of order “because, without dispute, this injunctive relief was entered sua sponte by the court in the absence of required pleadings and notice”); Pond v. McKnight, 339 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 197…
-
Earnest Stanberry, Jr. v. Escambia Cnty., 813 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…he remitti-tur, which Mr. Stanberry also seeks to challenge on appeal; or the correctness of various rulings at and after, trial, which the County contends on cross-appeal were erroneous. See First Union Nat’l Bank v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Chicago Title Ins. Agency v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 560 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Perimeter Invs. v. Amerifirst Dev. Co., 423 So. 2d 586, 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also State, Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Ve…
-
S.D.S. Autos, Inc. v. Chrzanowski, 976 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…o. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (citations omitted). Accord Roofcraft Int’l, Inc. v. Thomas, 677 So. 2d 39, 39-40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); King v. Odle, 665 So. 2d 378, 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); First Union Nat’l Bank v. Peoples Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 644 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Polo v. Polo, 643 So. 2d 55, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); George J. Karr, D.D.S. v. Sellers, 620 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Bd. of Med…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Maxwell J. Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 1957)
- Soffer v. Leopold, 531 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Mohamed Shouman v. Am. Express Travel Related Servs. Co., Inc., 566 So. 2d 875 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- In the Interest of Baby BOY B, 602 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Camji v. Helmsley, 602 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)