CENTENNIAL BANK, PETITIONER,
v.
NFP 1, LLC, AN ADMINISTRATIVELY DISSOLVED FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, WALTER J. ARMISTEAD, JAMES BARRS FLOYD, AND HERON WALK HARBOR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., RESPONDENTS
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.
Centennial Bank sought certiorari review of a trial court judgment that granted its foreclosure claim but deferred the related action on a promissory note. The appellate court dismissed the petition, holding that the bank lacked standing to seek certiorari because the judgment was entirely favorable to its interests on the sole issue adjudicated.
The bank lacks standing to seek certiorari review because the judgment was entirely favorable to the bank on the sole issue adjudicated (the foreclosure claim), and a party cannot seek review of an order that is entirely favorable to its own interests. The adverse findings regarding the note do not provide a basis for certiorari review because the trial court has not yet acted on those findings.
[1] A party lacks standing to seek review of an order that is entirely favorable to its own interests.
[2] The scope of review on a petition for writ of certiorari is limited to the correctness of the order to which the petition is directed.
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“a party lacks standing to seek review of an order that is entirely favorable to its own interests”
Establishes the core principle that a party cannot obtain appellate review when the judgment benefits them on the sole issue decided.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCentennial Bank filed suit to foreclose a mortgage on real property and recover damages for failure to make payment on a promissory note. The trial co…
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 Action On Promissory Note cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, Centennial Bank, filed suit against the respondents to foreclose a mortgage on real property and to recover damages for failure to make payment on the underlying promissory note. The trial court ruled in the bank’s favor on the foreclosure claim but deferred consideration of the related action on the note. The bank now seeks review by certiorari, contending that the judgment contains adverse findings that may ultimately preclude recovery on the note.
The scope of review on a petition for writ of certiorari is limited to the correctness of the order to which the petition is directed and does not bring up for consideration any other matter decided in the trial court. See Haines City Community Development v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523, 525 (Fla.1995) (articulating the characteristics that distinguish certiorari from an appeal). The sole point adjudicated in the judgment to be reviewed in this case is that the bank is entitled to foreclose on the mortgage. Because that decision is not in any respect adverse to the bank, it cannot be said that the bank has suffered an injury that could justify appellate review. As we have held in other cases, a party lacks standing to seek review of an order that is entirely favorable to its own interests. See Dep’t of Health v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc., 935 So.2d 636, 637 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Florida Commission on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology v. State Dep’t of Ins., 716 So.2d 345, 346 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). That is precisely the situation here.
It is true, as the bank argues, that the judgment contains certain adverse findings relating to the bank’s right to recover on *571the note, but the trial court has not yet acted on those findings. The bank contends that it will suffer irreparable harm if the judgment is not reviewed by certiorari, yet it is clear that the bank has not yet suffered any harm at all. Perhaps it is fair to say that the findings in the judgment do not bode well for the bank in its effort to recover damages under the note, but the judgment now before the court does not actually dispose of that claim.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari on the ground that the bank lacks standing to seek review of the judgment.
Dismissed.
CLARK and SWANSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Leila Heggs, 658 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 1995)
- Bell v. State, 935 So. 2d 636 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Fla. Comm'n on Hurricane Loss Projection Methodology v. State, 716 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)