Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. Statewide Mortgage Corp.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. Statewide Mortgage Corp.

464 So. 2d 187, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 312, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12291

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 6, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1907

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 464 So. 2d 187 (Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. Statewide Mortgage Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A. v. Statewide Mortgage Corp., 464 So. 2d 187, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 312, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12291 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

HERSEY, Judge.

This petition for writ of certiorari seeks review of an order denying a motion to amend the complaint. Petitioner sought to foreclose a mortgage. Respondents in their answer disclosed an underlying agree[188]*188ment between the parties not referred to in the complaint. The parties apparently are in accord that in the absence of a breach of this underlying agreement petitioner would not be entitled to foreclose. The motion to amend the complaint to allege such a breach came at a time when the litigation was in a state of indefinite continuance.

We have held on numerous occasions that in order to invoke certiorari, petitioner must demonstrate that the order at issue is a departure from the essential requirements of law producing a result for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. E.g., Keehn v. Joseph C. Mackey and Co., 420 So.2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). That the petitioner “will have gone through a trial under the burden of the order complained of, incur substantial expenses for experts, etc., and because resolution of the issue now on appeal might preclude the necessity of a second trial,” is an insufficient basis for obtaining a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order. Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

LETTS and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HERSEY, Judge.

This petition for writ of certiorari seeks review of an order denying a motion to amend the complaint. Petitioner sought to foreclose a mortgage. Respondents in their answer disclosed an underlying agree[188]*188ment between the parties not referred to in the complaint. The parties apparently are in accord that in the absence of a breach of this underlying agreement petitioner would not be entitled to foreclose. The motion to amend the complaint to allege such a breach came at a time when the litigation was in a state of indefinite continuance.

We have held on numerous occasions that in order to invoke certiorari, petitioner must demonstrate that the order at issue is a departure from the essential requirements of law producing a result for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. E.g., Keehn v. Joseph C. Mackey and Co., 420 So.2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). That the petitioner “will have gone through a trial under the burden of the order complained of, incur substantial expenses for experts, etc., and because resolution of the issue now on appeal might preclude the necessity of a second trial,” is an insufficient basis for obtaining a writ of certiorari to review an interlocutory order. Siegel v. Abramowitz, 309 So.2d 234, 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.

LETTS and BARKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

464 So. 2d 187, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 312, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 12291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-bank-of-south-florida-na-v-statewide-mortgage-corp-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack