JUDY A. RODRIGO, APPELLANT,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, APPELLEE
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 court affirmed the non-final order granting restoration of possession with conditions because appellant invited the error by agreeing to the conditions at the hearing, and dismissed the appeal of the order denying relief as non-final and non-renewable.
A party cannot appeal conditions it agreed to at the trial court level, and a non-final order denying a motion for relief from a non-final order is not appealable.
[1] A party who agrees to conditions imposed by a trial court cannot subsequently appeal those conditions as error on the ground that they were invited or introduced by the p…
[2] A non-final order denying a motion for relief from a non-final order is not renewable on appeal.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A party cannot claim as error on appeal that which he invited or introduced below. That is, he cannot take an inconsistent position on appeal.”
The court cited Held v. Held for the principle that parties cannot appeal errors they invited or agreed to at trial.
Appellant sought to restore possession of her home subject to conditions that she turn on water and air conditioning and allow the bank to enter with …
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant appeals a non-final order granting her motion to restore possession of her home but with the condition that she turn on the water and air conditioning to her unit. During the hearing on appellant’s motion to restore possession of property, appellant’s counsel agreed to these conditions. Having invited the alleged error, appellant cannot now be heard to complain. See Held v. Held, 617 So.2d 358, 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“A party cannot claim as error on appeal that which he invited or introduced below. That is, he cannot take an inconsistent position on appeal.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we affirm on this issue.
Appellant also seeks to appeal a non-final order denying her motion for relief, which added as an additional condition that the appellee bank may enter the property with her permission. A non-final order denying a motion for relief from a non-final order is not renewable on appeal. See Hi-Tech Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. Thiem, 659 So.2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to the order denying the motion for relief.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bennett's Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Held v. Held, 617 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Hi-Tech Mktg. Grp., Inc. v. Thiem, 659 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)