CONTINENTAL EQUITIES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
C. V. GALARDI ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Continental Equities seeks review of trial court orders denying its motion to be substituted as the real party in interest in a condemnation proceeding, following its acquisition of property through foreclosure from the original condemnees. The court grants a writ of common law certiorari and stays the trial to address whether Continental should be substituted as the real party in interest.
The court finds Continental has demonstrated a prima facie case that the trial court's denial constitutes a departure from essential requirements of law for which there would be no adequate remedy by appeal. Certiorari is granted and the trial proceedings are stayed pending resolution of the substitution issue.
[1] A motion to stay trial proceedings and a motion to be substituted as the real party in interest may be treated as a petition for writ of common law certiorari.
[2] Certiorari is appropriate when a ruling, if erroneous, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal afte…
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“A prima facie case has been shown by Continental that the ruling, if erroneous, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there will be no adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment.”
Establishes the court's basis for granting certiorari relief based on departure from essential law
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 16, 1976, Continental Equities acquired a certificate of title through a foreclosure action to lands previously taken by the Jacksonville …
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 Adequate Remedy On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By a notice of appeal and an instrument entitled “Motion to Stay Trial Proceedings”, Continental Equities, Inc., seeks review of certain orders entered by the trial court denying its motion to be substituted as the real party in interest for the defendants, C. V. Galardi and Minna T. Galardi, his wife. The motion and its attachments are treated as a petition for writ of common law certiorari.
Factual allegations which are germane to this proceeding are: On February 16, 1976, by way of a foreclosure action, Continental acquired a certificate of title to the lands which had previously been acquired by an order of taking by the Jacksonville Transportation Authority; all interests of the Galardis in the subject lands were extinguished by reason of the foreclosure action ; Continental’s motion to be substituted as the real party in interest was denied by the trial court; trial for the purpose of establishing the compensation to be paid for the land taken is set for May 10, 1976.
A prima facie case has been shown by Continental that the ruling, if erroneous, constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law for which there will be no adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. Certiorari is granted. (1 Cran-dall, Florida Common Law Practice, § 472) Continental’s Motion to Stay Trial Proceedings and Continental’s Motion to Consolidate this proceeding with its appeal in this cause in this Court’s Case No. BB-13S are granted. Sua sponte, the cause is expedited. Continental shall have 30 days within which to file its record on appeal in this court. Each succeeding stage for perfecting the appeal is shortened to one-half of the time schedule set out in Florida Appellate Rule 3.6, subd. j.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.