WILLIAM HARRIS, JAMES KENNEDY, SAM AND BETTY SWORD, MARLENE SWORD, MATT AND BARBARA SWORD, MARK RACO, CARL BAUMUNK, IVAN AND SUE WALKER, WILLIAM AND GOLDIE LOWE, WINONA GOFF, JAMES GOOD, AND CEDAR GROVE MOBILE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
H. LEE CULBREATH, III, H.L. CULBREATH, JR., KAY CULBREATH HELLER, AND JOHN R. CULBREATH, TRUSTEE, 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.
Mobile home park tenants and their association sought writs of prohibition and certiorari to challenge county court eviction proceedings initiated by park owners seeking to change land use. The court affirmed the denial of the prohibition writ and denied the certiorari petition, finding no procedural due process violations or legal errors in the circuit court's rulings.
The court affirmed the denial of the writ of prohibition as an appealable final order. For the remaining non-final orders reviewable only through second-tier certiorari, the court found the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the circuit court violated procedural due process or applied incorrect law, and therefore denied the certiorari petition.
[1] A denial of a writ of prohibition is an appealable final order.
[2] Appellate review of circuit court orders, other than appealable final orders, may be sought through a petition 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“Of the circuit court orders entered in this case, only the denial of the writ of prohibition is an appealable final order, see 2 Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 21 (2001-02), and we affirm that order.”
Establishes the court's distinction between appealable and non-appealable orders and the threshold question of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePark owners notified tenants to vacate in anticipation of a land use change. When tenants did not vacate, owners filed eviction lawsuits in county cou…
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 Petition For Writ Of Common Law Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit instituted by various tenants in a mobile home park and a purported mobile homeowners’ association against the owners of the park. The park owners had notified the homeowners of their need to secure other accommodations in anticipation of the park owners’ intention to change the land use. When the mobile homeowners did not vacate as warned, the park owners filed eviction lawsuits in county court pursuant to section 728.061(3), Florida Statutes (1997).
During that litigation the purported mobile homeowners’ association filed motions to intervene in the county court actions; those motions were granted in six of the eight cases filed. The mobile homeowners also filed motions to dismiss, which were denied. Their next step was to seek review of a number of county court orders by filing petitions for writs of prohibition (seeking an appraisal in the circuit court), common law certiorari, and all writs in the appellate division of the circuit court. When the circuit court denied relief, this appeal ensued.
Of the circuit court orders entered in this case, only the denial of the writ of prohibition is an appealable final order, see 2 Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 21 (2001-02), and we affirm that order. In spite of the denomination of this matter as an appeal, the remaining rulings are reviewable in this court only through a petition for writ of certiorari to the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity, or “second-tier certiorari,” and we treat this matter as such. Fla. R.App. P. 9.040(c).
Our scope of review of this type of petition is quite narrow, limited to the issues of whether the circuit court afforded procedural due process and whether it applied the correct law. See Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla.2000); Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla.1995); see also Florida Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089, 1092 (Fla.2000) (“As a practical matter, the circuit court’s final ruling in most first-tier cases is conclusive, for second-tier review is extraordinarily limited.”).
The petitioners have not demonstrated that the circuit court failed in either essential, and we therefore deny the petition for certiorari. Our disposition is, of course, without prejudice to any rights the petitioners might have to pursue these issues on an appropriate plenary appeal.
Appeal affirmed; petition for certiorari denied.
STRINGER and COVINGTON, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Tampa v. Burton, 873 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ias, the circuit court denied the petition. The order denying the Housing Authority’s petition for writ of prohibition concluded the original proceeding in the circuit court. As such, the order is an appealable final order. See Harris v. Culbreath, 818 So. 2d 563, 564 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Loftis v. State, 682 So. 2d 632, 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); State v. Brown, 527 So. 2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Philip J. Padovano, Florida Appellate Practice § 21.4 (2003 ed. West Group); but see State v. Shaw, 643 So. 2d…
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Farren Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 2000)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City OF Dania, 761 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 2000)