JOHN WESLEY MIMS, PETITIONER,
v.
AUDREY BROXTON, RESPONDENT
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.
John Mims petitioned for certiorari review of an order denying his motion to amend his foreclosure complaint to add an indispensable party. The court granted the petition and quashed the lower court's order, finding that the trial court erred in denying the amendment motion based on a finding that the case was closed, when the underlying dismissal was actually non-final.
The court granted the petition for certiorari, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to amend because the underlying dismissal was non-final (as evidenced by the equivocal language that Mims "may" be entitled to recover), meaning the case was not actually closed. The order denying the amendment constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice because it deprived Mims of any adequate remedy on appeal.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint to add an indispensable party may be reviewed by certiorari when the petitioner demonstrates a departure from the…
[2] A dismissal order is not final when it contains equivocal language that leaves issues open for future judicial determination.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“To receive relief under certiorari review, the petitioner must show that (i) the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law, (2) the petitioner will suffer a material injury for the rest of the case, and (3) there is no adequate remedy on post-judgment appeal.”
Establishes the three-part test for certiorari relief that the court applies
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMims filed a foreclosure lawsuit against Audrey Broxton. The trial court dismissed the action for failure to join an indispensable party (the joint no…
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 Motion To Amend Complaint cases and more on FLexlaw
John Mims petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari, seeking review of the lower court’s denial of his motion for leave to amend his complaint to add an indispensable party. We grant the petition and quash the order under review.
The facts stem from a foreclosure lawsuit filed by Mims against Audrey Brox-ton. The lower court dismissed the action on the note for failure to join an indispensable party. In the same order, the trial court found that Mims had not established that a mortgage existed, but rather that the litigated document only operated as a promissory note. Although the court found that, Mims “may” be entitled to recover the unpaid portion of the promissory note, instead of determining entitlement, *553the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to join the joint note holder.
On appeal, this court considered the order non-final and, therefore, non-appeal-able and dismissed the appeal.1 Following this, Mims filed a motion to amend the complaint. The trial court denied the motion finding the case was- closed. This timely petition followed.
To, receive relief under certiorari review, the petitioner must show that (i) the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law, (2) the petitioner will suffer a material injury for the rest of the case, and (3) there is no adequate remedy on post-judgment appeal. Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So.3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (citing Allan & Conrad, Inc. v. Univ. of Cent. Fla., 961 So.2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)). The last two requirements “are often combined into the concept of ‘irreparable harm_Id. (citing Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, 104 So.3d 344, 351 (Fla.2012)). Irreparable harm is jurisdictional, and must be found before a court may even consider whether there has been a départure from the essential requirements of the law. Id.
The order currently before this Court denies Mims’ motion to amend, which was filed in an attempt to add the indispensable party. The only justification for this denial appears to be the lower court’s finding that the case was closed. However, as this Court found in Mims’ prior appeal, the lower court’s dismissal was not a determination on the merits. Despite concluding no mortgage existed, the trial court’s order specifies that Mims “may” be entitled to recover the remainder of the amount owed under the note. This language is equivocal and leaves the issue open for future judicial determination. See Paulino v. BJ’s Wholesale Club, Inc., 106 So.3d 985, 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (finding order of dismissal to be non-final where language of order was “somewhat equivocal, i.e., it ‘appears plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, allegations in the complaint go beyond those arguably presented in the administrative charge — ’”) Accordingly, the case was not closed.
As -the order below was not final, the order denying leave to amend the complaint was erroneous. -Nevertheless, for such an error to reach the level of “[a] departure from, the essential requirements of law,” it must. violate , “a clearly established principle of law [resulting] in a miscarriage of justice.” State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So.2d 393, 397 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (discussing “departure from the essential requirements of law” with reference to second-tier certiorari review). A determination of the finality of judgments is well-established in the law. Because the order denying leave to amend the complaint effectively deprives Mims of any final judgment to appeal, he clearly has no adequate remedy on appeal; For this reason, the lower court’s order also represents a miscarriage of justice.
PETITION GRANTED.
COHEN, BERGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. Scott, 375 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…d law that, as a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioning party must establish that it has suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.” (emphasis added)); Mims v. Broxton, 191 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (noting that for an appellate court to have certiorari jurisdiction, “the petitioner must show” that “the petitioner will suffer” irreparable harm (emphasis added)). Beyond this clear defect, the petition also fails to iden…
-
Sona v. Found. Servs. of Cent. Fla., Inc. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…how the following familiar elements: (1) the lower court order departed from the essential requirements of the law, (2) causing material injury for the rest of the case, and (3) there is no adequate remedy on post-judgment appeal. Mims v. Broxton, 191 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)). These last two requirements are often combined into the concept of irreparable harm. Id. (citing Dumigan, 151 So. 3d at 1284). Bec…
-
Sona v. Found. Servs. of Cent. Fla., Inc. (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…how the following familiar elements: (1) the lower court order departed from the essential requirements of the law, (2) causing material injury for the rest of the case, and (3) there is no adequate remedy on post-judgment appeal. Mims v. Broxton, 191 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (citing Holmes Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d 1282, 1284 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)). These last two requirements are often combined into the concept of irreparable harm. Id. (citing Dumigan, 151 So. 3d at 1284). Bec…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. SAN Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012)
- State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Lorenzo, 969 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Holmes Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Dumigan, 151 So. 3d 1282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
- Allan & Conrad, Inc. v. Univ. OF Cent. Fla., 961 So. 2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Pilar Paulino v. BJ'S Wholesale Club, Inc., 106 So. 3d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)