COLONNADE 101 SE, INC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MIREYA CRISTINA CAMBERO CORDERO, 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 dissolution of notices of lis pendens filed by appellee. The trial court granted appellants' motion based on procedural defects, without reaching the alternative substantive grounds. The appellate court affirmed, holding that once appellants received the relief they requested on procedural grounds, the trial court was not required to address alternative substantive arguments.
The trial court was not required to address or adjudicate alternative substantive grounds once it granted appellants the precise relief they requested based on the procedural grounds asserted in their motion.
[1] A trial court is not obligated to adjudicate alternative grounds for relief when it has granted the movant the precise relief sought on one of those grounds.
[2] A party generally cannot appeal an order that is wholly in its favor.
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“We affirm because, under the order on review, appellants received exactly the relief they requested.”
Establishes the core holding that appellants obtained the relief sought, making affirmance appropriate.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellants filed a motion seeking dissolution of several notices of lis pendens, arguing they were procedurally and substantively improper. The trial …
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 Lis Pendens cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the nonfinal order below, which granted appellant^ the precise relief they sought in the trial court. Appellants’ motion sought an order dissolving several notices of lis pendens, contending that the notices were - both procedurally and substantively improper. The trial court held a non-evidentiary hearing oh the motion, a procedure which appellants did not object to. ' Following arguments of counsel, the court granted1 the motion and eñtered an order dissolving-the notices of lis pendens upon a determination that they were procedurally defective. The court further stated in its order that, having granted appellants the requested relief on the procedural grounds asserted, it was unnecessary to reach the merits of the substantive grounds or to hold an evidentiary hearing which would be required to adjudicate the substantive grounds raised in the motion.
We affirm because, under the order on review^ appellants received exactly the relief they requested. Morgan v. Morgan, 404 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). We reject appellants’ contention on appeal that the trial court was obligated to adjudicate the alternative substantive grounds asserted by appellants in their motion. Having granted appellants the relief they requested in their motion, upon the procedural ground asserted in that motion, the trial court was not required to address or adjudicate the alternative substantive grounds raised in support of the *448very same relief sought.1
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Pearson, 212 So. 3d 1071 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…erests. He is not liable for anything under the judgment on the note (which he did not sign), and the mortgage foreclosure against him was dismissed in that judgment. A party cannot appeal a wholly favorable order. Colonnade 101 SE, Inc. v. Cordero, 194 So. 3d 446, 448 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). See Philip J. Padovano, Fla. Appellate Practice § 10:4, Entitlement to review—Standing (2016 ed.). Theresa Pearson might have been substituted in his stead if a motion in proper form had been filed. Fla. R. App. P. 9.040…
-
Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. ALL Ins. Restoration Servs., Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…as to the appellant Mary Witt, no relief whatever having been granted against her, or any liability adjudged against her or her estate, she cannot appeal; and the appeal as to her should be dismissed . . . .”); Colonnade 101 SE, Inc. v. Cordero, 194 So. 3d 446, 448 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“[A] party cannot appeal an order which is wholly in its favor.”); Save Anna Maria, Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 700 So. 2d 113, 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“The general rule is that parties cannot file proceedings to revie…
Authorities Cited
- Rivas v. Prof'l Prot. & Investigations Agency, Inc. (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., Inc., 67 So. 2d 540 (Fla. 1953)
- Katz v. RED TOP Sedan Serv., Inc., 136 So. 2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Morgan v. Morgan, 404 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)