Mace v. SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mace v. SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust

155 So. 3d 390, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20724, 2014 WL 7243188

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 22, 2014

DocketNo. 1D14-3595

StatusPublished

This text of 155 So. 3d 390 (Mace v. SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust) 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

Mace v. SRMOF II 2012-1 Trust, 155 So. 3d 390, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20724, 2014 WL 7243188 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants timely brought this appeal seeking review of an order of the circuit court that approved, ratified, confirmed, and adopted the general magistrate’s recommendation that a final judgment of foreclosure be entered in favor of the plaintiff. Although the court adopted that recommendation, it failed to enter a final judgment. Because the judicial labor required to enter a final judgment of foreclosure has yet to be concluded, the appeal is premature. Cf. § 45.0315, Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing that the indebtedness may be cured and a foreclosure sale prevented “by paying the amount of moneys specified in the judgment, order, or decree of foreclosure”); Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1.996(a) (“Final Judgment of Foreclosure”). Therefore, the order did not complete the judicial labor required of the cause and the appeal is premature. See Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002) (reaffirming the traditional test for finality requiring that “no further action by the court will be necessary”). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellants timely brought this appeal seeking review of an order of the circuit court that approved, ratified, confirmed, and adopted the general magistrate’s recommendation that a final judgment of foreclosure be entered in favor of the plaintiff. Although the court adopted that recommendation, it failed to enter a final judgment. Because the judicial labor required to enter a final judgment of foreclosure has yet to be concluded, the appeal is premature. Cf. § 45.0315, Fla. Stat. (2010) (providing that the indebtedness may be cured and a foreclosure sale prevented “by paying the amount of moneys specified in the judgment, order, or decree of foreclosure”); Fla. R. Civ. P. Form 1.996(a) (“Final Judgment of Foreclosure”). Therefore, the order did not complete the judicial labor required of the cause and the appeal is premature. See Caufield v. Cantele, 837 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.2002) (reaffirming the traditional test for finality requiring that “no further action by the court will be necessary”). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

PADOVANO, MARSTILLER, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 So. 3d 390, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 20724, 2014 WL 7243188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mace-v-srmof-ii-2012-1-trust-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack