Richard Meruelo v. Pine Tree Development, LLC

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 3D2022-1928
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 18, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1928 Lower Tribunal No. 21-19263 ________________

Richard Meruelo, Appellant,

vs.

Pine Tree Development, LLC, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

Law Offices of Geoffrey B. Marks, and Geoffrey B. Marks (Vero Beach), for appellant.

White & Case LLP, and Raoul G. Cantero and David W. Rifkin; Ehrenstein | Sager, and Michael D. Ehrenstein, Latasha N. Johnson, and Brett D. Sager; Rafool, PLLC, and Seth J. Rutman, for appellees.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Richard Meruelo appeals various procedural orders underpinning a

partial summary judgment in an action for foreclosure of his former marital

home. He argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying him

additional time to discover evidence that would purportedly show a genuine

issue of material fact as to the mortgage default date, and thus the amount

of damages.

While this appeal was pending, this Court affirmed as to Mr. Meruelo’s

appeal of the underlying foreclosure judgment, including the foreclosure

date. See Meruelo v. Pine Tree Dev., LLC, No. 3D23-0457, 2024 WL

4280619 (Fla. 3d DCA Sep. 25, 2024).

We asked the parties for supplemental briefing to address the impact

of the decision in Meruelo on the remaining appeals. Specifically, we asked

“whether the affirmance in 3D2023-0457 moots or otherwise resolves the

salient legal issues raised” in the remaining appeals. “An issue is moot when

the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can

have no actual effect,” and “[a] case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual

controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist.” Godwin v. State, 593

So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1992); see also Montgomery v. Dep’t of Health &

Rehab. Servs., 468 So. 2d 1014, 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“A case

becomes moot, for purposes of appeal, where, by a change of circumstances

2 prior to the appellate decision, an intervening event makes it impossible for

the court to grant a party any effectual relief. Mootness can be raised by the

appellate court on its own motion.” (citation omitted)). “A moot case generally

will be dismissed.” Godwin, 593 So. 2d at 212.

We have reviewed Mr. Meruelo’s arguments and find them to have

been sufficiently resolved by our prior affirmance in Meruelo, such that he no

longer has any interest which our judgment could affect. Accordingly, this

appeal is dismissed as moot. To the extent he may have some residual

interest not already resolved by the prior appeal, we affirm any remaining

issues without further discussion.

Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.