Colonnade 101 Se v. Cambero Cordero

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Colonnade 101 Se v. Cambero Cordero

194 So. 3d 446, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7139

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 11, 2016

Docket15-0721

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 194 So. 3d 446 (Colonnade 101 Se v. Cambero Cordero) 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

Colonnade 101 Se v. Cambero Cordero, 194 So. 3d 446, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7139 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

EMAS, J.

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 *448 very same relief sought. 1

Affirmed.

1

. We would .ordinarily dismiss the case for lack of standing upon the premise that a party cannot appeal' an order which is wholly in its . favor. Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So.2d 540, (Fla.1953); Morgan, 404 So.2d at 1101. However, appellants did raise, in their motion below, the issue' of the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, Although .appellants’ motion, did not seek dismissal of the cause, the trial court expressly addressed the issue in its order and determined it had jurisdiction. Given this determination, we cannot say that the order on appeal was wholly favorable to. appellants. See Katz v. Red Top Sedan Serv., Inc., 136 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), Nevertheless, we affirm" without further discussion the trial court's determination of that issue.

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

EMAS, J.

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 *448 very same relief sought. 1

Affirmed.

1

. We would .ordinarily dismiss the case for lack of standing upon the premise that a party cannot appeal' an order which is wholly in its . favor. Credit Indus. Co. v. Remark Chem. Co., 67 So.2d 540, (Fla.1953); Morgan, 404 So.2d at 1101. However, appellants did raise, in their motion below, the issue' of the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, Although .appellants’ motion, did not seek dismissal of the cause, the trial court expressly addressed the issue in its order and determined it had jurisdiction. Given this determination, we cannot say that the order on appeal was wholly favorable to. appellants. See Katz v. Red Top Sedan Serv., Inc., 136 So.2d 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962), Nevertheless, we affirm" without further discussion the trial court's determination of that issue.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 So. 3d 446, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 7139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colonnade-101-se-v-cambero-cordero-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack