Randolph v. Tatarow Family Partners, Ltd.
This text of 899 So. 2d 326 (Randolph v. Tatarow Family Partners, Ltd.) 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.
Opinion
Because her notice of appeal was not timely filed, Audrey Randolph’s appeal of a final judgment of foreclosure was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Randolph v. Tatarow Family Partners, Ltd., 881 So.2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). By petition for writ of mandamus, Randolph now seeks an order compelling the circuit court to rule on her motion to proceed as an indigent on appeal, “thereby allowing [her] brief to be entered so that the appeal can proceed.” However, even a favorable ruling on her motion to proceed as an indigent will not result in Randolph’s appeal being reinstated, nor has she alleged any other practical benefit that will accrue to her or anyone else , by compelling the circuit court to rule on her motion. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Campbell v. State ex rel. Garrett, 133 Fla. 638, 183 So. 340 (1938)(mandamus relief will not be granted where the writ, if issued, would be without beneficial result and fruitless to the petitioner); see also Stupelli v. Dimitrouleas, 616 So.2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
899 So. 2d 326, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1231, 2005 WL 277924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/randolph-v-tatarow-family-partners-ltd-fladistctapp-2005.