MARIA MERCEDES FLORES A/K/A MARIA MERCEDES LOPEZ, PETITIONER/APPELLANT,
v.
JORGE LOPEZ AND ALINA LOPEZ, ETC., RESPONDENTS/APPELLEES
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.
Maria Mercedes Flores appealed from trial court orders denying her motion to dismiss an annulment action and a protective order, and granting a motion to compel execution of a quit claim deed from a prenuptial agreement. The court dismissed both the certiorari petition and interlocutory appeal, finding no irreparable harm and that possession claims remained subject to further determination.
The court dismissed the certiorari petition because Flores failed to demonstrate material injury that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. The court also dismissed the interlocutory appeal because the parties' claims to immediate possession of the home remain subject to further court determination, making the appeal premature.
[1] A party seeking a writ of certiorari must demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in material injury that cannot be corrected on post-jud…
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari will be dismissed if the petitioner fails to establish material injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.
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“To prevail in its petition for a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes (1) a departure from the essential, requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case, (3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal.”
Establishes the three-part test required to obtain certiorari review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose Ignacio Lopez, Sr., an incapacitated person represented by his adult children and co-guardians, filed suit to annul his marriage to Maria Mercede…
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 Postjudgment Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Jose Ignacio Lopez, Sr., an incapacitated person, through his adult children and co-gu'ardians, filed the underlying lawsuit for the annulment of his marriage to Maria Mercedes Flores. In the trial court, Flores filed a motion to dismiss the annulment action and also moved for a protective order, which the trial court denied. Flores filed a petition for certiorari review of those orders. Also in the trial court, Lopez moved to compel execution and delivery of a quit claim deed, as required by a provision in a prenuptial agreement between Lopez and Flores, which the trial court granted. Flores filed an interlocutory appeal of that order.
We begin by addressing Flores’ petition. “To prevail in its petition for a writ of certiorari, a party must demonstrate that the contested order constitutes (1) a departure from the essential, requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case, (3) that cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal.” Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So.3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); see also Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla.1998) (“[I]t is settled law that, as a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioning party must establish that it has *596suffered an irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal.”)- We find no material injury which cannot be corrected on post-judgment appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ.1
Regarding the interlocutory appéal, we accept. Lopez’s interpretation of the trial court order as including the statements of the trial judge that the execution and delivery of the deed gives Lopez no right to exclusive use or possession of the home, subject to further order of the court. The appeal, therefore, should be dismissed because “the parties’ respective claims to immediate possession remain subject :to determination,” Higgins v. Ryan, 81 So.3d 588, 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012).' . '
Petition dismissed; appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc, 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998)
- Damsky v. Univ. OF Miami & Alan Livingstone, M.D., 152 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Higgins v. Ryan, 81 So. 3d 588 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Smith v. Smith, 199 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)