Monica Alice Ullrich v. Federal Mortgage Lending, LLC, Etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-1474
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 21, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1474 Lower Tribunal No. 24-21227-CA-01 ________________

Monica Alice Ullrich, Appellant,

vs.

Federal Mortgage Lending, LLC, etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Vivianne del Rio, Judge.

The Tome Law Firm, P.A., and Jay R. Tome (Davie), for appellant.

No Appearance, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Appellant Monica Alice Ullrich challenges a July 1, 2025 non-final order

that denied her April 16, 2025 motion that sought both to (i) quash service of

process, and (ii) reconsider an earlier interlocutory order that denied

Appellant’s February 27, 2025 motion to vacate a January 28, 2025 judicial

default. We have jurisdiction to review only that portion of the challenged

order denying Appellant’s motion to quash service of process. Fla. R. App.

P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(i).1

We find no error in the trial court’s determination that Appellant waived

her improper service claim by not raising the claim at her first opportunity

(that is, in her February 27, 2025 motion to vacate default), and affirm that

portion of the challenged order denying Appellant’s motion to quash service

of process. See Century-Nat’l Ins. Co. v. Frantz, 320 So. 3d 929, 930-31

(Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (holding that a party asserting defective service of

process must challenge personal jurisdiction in the initial motion); Consol.

Aluminum Corp. v. Weinroth, 422 So. 2d 330, 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Fla.

1 That portion of the challenged July 1, 2025 non-final order denying reconsideration of an earlier interlocutory order denying Appellant’s motion to vacate the judicial default is not appealable under rule 9.130’s schedule of appealable non-final orders, and therefore, is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Valledor Co. v. Decky, 338 So. 3d 956, 958 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022).

2 R. Civ. P. 1.140(b), (h). The remainder of the appeal is dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.