JOSE AND MIGDALIA QUINONES, APPELLANTS,
v.
SOUTHEASTERN INVESTMENT GROUP CORP., ETC., 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.
Appellants sought to appeal a foreclosure judgment and an order denying their motion to intervene in a foreclosure action where they were non-parties. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because appellants lacked standing to appeal the foreclosure judgment as non-parties and failed to timely appeal the order denying intervention.
Non-parties to a foreclosure action who were not included in the final judgment lack standing to appeal that judgment. An order denying a motion to intervene constitutes a final determination requiring a timely notice of appeal within thirty days, and failure to file timely is an irremediable jurisdictional defect.
[1] Non-parties to a foreclosure action who are not included in the final judgment lack standing to appeal that judgment.
[2] A party seeking to appeal an order denying their motion to intervene must file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the order's rendition.
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“because Appellants were non-parties in the action and were not included in the final judgment, they are considered legal strangers to the action and, as such, have no standing to appeal that final judgment”
Establishes the rule that non-parties lack standing to appeal a foreclosure judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSoutheastern Investment Group Corporation filed a foreclosure action against Orestes Gonzalez and Ibis Hernandez. The Quinones, claiming they had a fi…
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 Jurisdictional Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
Jose and Migdalia Quinones (“Appellants”) appeal a final judgment of foreclosure and an order denying their motion to intervene. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Southeastern Investment Group Corporation brought a foreclosure action against Orestes Gonzalez and Ibis Hernandez. Appellants were not named in the action but, claiming they had a first mortgage on the same property, filed a motion seeking to intervene in the action.
On October 2, 2013, the trial court denied Appellants’ motion to intervene. Appellants did not immediately appeal that order, instead waiting until rendition of the agreed final judgment of foreclosure (which did not name or reference Appellants), on February 19, 2014, to appeal both the final judgment and the order denying their motion to intervene.
As to the foreclosure final judgment, because Appellants were non-parties in the action and were not included in the final judgment, they are considered legal strangers to the action and, as such, have no standing to appeal that final judgment. See Portfolio Inv. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 81 So.3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) and eases cited therein.
With regard to the order denying Appellants’ motion to intervene, because the order constituted a final determination of the *550proceedings as to Appellants 1 , they were required to seek direct review of the order by filing a notice of appeal within thirty days of its rendition. Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A) and 9.110(b). Instead, they waited until rendition of the final judgment of foreclosure before filing their notice of appeal of the order denying the motion to intervene. Given that Appellants have no standing to seek review of the final judgment of foreclosure, the failure to timely file a notice of appeal of the order denying intervention constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect. State ex rel. Cantera v. Dist. Court of Appeal, Third Dist, 555 So.2d 360 (Fla.1990); Scott v. Darling, 118 So.3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Hawks v. Walker, 409 So.2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n ("Fannie Mae") v. Gallant, 211 So. 3d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…e Stone’s order or timely seek rehearing. Therefore, Judge Lazarus lacked authority to reconsider that final order on the same facts, absent the grounds set forth in Rule 1.540. See Tingle, 245 So. 2d at 78; see also Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). Second, although we do not need to reach the merits of Gallant’s repeated requests to intervene in this case, we find that the court departed from the essential requirements of the law by permitting her to do so. “ ‘[W]h…
-
Benton v. U.S. Bank, 171 So. 3d 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…(affirming order on appeal due to appellant’s failure to file an adequate appendix despite being directed to do so pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.220). As to Ms. Stokes, we dismiss the appeal. See Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (dismissing appeal of foreclosure final judgment where appellants had no standing to appeal the final judgment and otherwise failed to seek timely review of the order denying the motion to intervene). Affirmed in part; d…
-
City of Coral Gables v. Garcia, 347 So. 3d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…order denying a motion to intervene is appealable as a matter of right, by plenary appeal, because the order constitutes a final determination of the proceeding as to the parties seeking to intervene.”); see also Quinones v. Se. Inv. Grp. Corp., 138 So. 3d 549, 549-50 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ---PAGE 7--- (“With regard to the order denying Appellants’ motion to intervene, because the order constituted a final determination of the proceedings as to Appellants, they were required to seek direct review of the…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- In the Interest of S.N.W. v. S.C.W. & Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 912 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Y.H. v. F.L.H. and K.W.H., 784 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Eduardo Cantera v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 555 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1990)
- Portfolio Invs. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 534 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Superior Fence & Rail OF N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)
- City OF Dania v. Broward Cnty., 658 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Shyam Ahuja Private v. Garden Islands Int'l, LLC, 118 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Scott v. Darling, 118 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)