KIMBERLY A. ENSLER, PETITIONER,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a writ of prohibition to prevent the trial court from ordering a new trial, requiring it instead to enter an order of dismissal consistent with the court's prior mandate in Ensler v. Aurora Loan Services that reversed a foreclosure judgment due to the lender's failure to present admissible evidence of compliance with mortgage conditions precedent.
The court granted the writ of prohibition, holding that the trial court must enter an order of dismissal as required by the appellate mandate in Ensler, and is precluded from entertaining a new trial. The citation to Holt v. Calchas in the prior Ensler opinion made clear the intent was dismissal, not a new trial.
[1] A writ of prohibition may lie to prevent a trial court from proceeding contrary to an appellate court's mandate.
[2] A citation to a prior appellate decision in a mandate can indicate the intended outcome upon remand, even if not explicitly stated.
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“Prohibition will therefore lie to prevent a trial court from proceeding contrary to an appellate court's mandate.”
Establishes the legal basis for granting the writ of prohibition to enforce compliance with the appellate mandate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn the prior case of Ensler v. Aurora Loan Services, the court reversed a foreclosure judgment and remanded for further proceedings, finding that Nati…
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 Condition Precedent To Foreclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner petitions for a writ of certiorari, or alternatively, a writ of prohibition, requesting that this court find the lower court failed to comply with this court’s mandate in Ensler v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC, 178 So.3d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), because it ordered a new trial rather than enter an order of dismissal. We grant the writ of prohibition. See InPhy-Net Contracting Servs. v. Soria, 82 So.3d 1049, 1051 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“Prohibition will therefore lie to prevent a trial court from proceeding contrary to an appellate court’s mandate.”).
In Ensler, this court reversed the trial court and remanded for further proceedings, citing Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So.3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), because Nationstar, the appellee, “failed to present any admissible evidence” that it complied with the condition precedent to foreclose as set forth in paragraph twenty-two of the mortgage. Ensler, 178 So.3d at 98. In Holt, this court reversed and instructed the trial court to enter an order of dismissal because there was “insufficient evidence of compliance with paragraph twenty-two” of the mortgage. Holt, 155 So.3d at 507.
Following issuance of our opinion, Na-tionstar moved for clarification, arguing that this court should clarify that it was remanding for a new trial.’ Ensler filed a Response in Opposition to Appellee’s Motion for Clarification or, Alternatively, Motion for Clarification. Ensler argued there was no need for clarification as our citation to Holt made it clear that this court intended for the trial court to dismiss the case on remand. Ensler also argued that if this court was to clarify its opinion, which, Ensler submitted, was unnecessary, it should only be to instruct the lower court to enter an order of dismissal. - We denied the motion for clarification. Ensler now moves for a writ of prohibition be*618cause the lower court granted a new trial rather than dismiss the case.-
Although our opinion in Ensler does not say so 'explicitly, the citation to Holt should make it evident that this court intended for the trial court to enter an order of dismissal upon remand. We therefore grant the writ of prohibition to the extent the trial court is precluded from entertaining a new trial and must instead comply with the mandate in Ensler and enter an order of dismissal.
STEVENSON, LEVINE and KLINGENSMITH, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holt v. Calchas, LLC, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Diaz v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 155 So. 3d 499 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
- Ensler v. Aurora Loan Servs., LLC, 178 So. 3d 95 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Inphynet Contracting Servs., Inc. v. David M. Soria, M.D., 82 So. 3d 1049 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)