THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc. v. MELIDA ABADIA

District Court of Appeal of Florida

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc. v. MELIDA ABADIA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 2020

Docket20-1611

StatusPublished

This text of THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc. v. MELIDA ABADIA (THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc. v. MELIDA ABADIA) 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

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, etc. v. MELIDA ABADIA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed December 23, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D20-1611 Lower Tribunal No. 18-41280 ________________

The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for the Certificateholders of the CWALT 2006-OA12 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-OA12, Petitioner,

vs.

Melida Abadia, Respondent.

A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge.

Polsinelli PC, and Brendan I. Herbert and Henry H. Bolz IV, for petitioner.

Jacobs Legal, PLLC, and Bruce Jacobs; and Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Roy D. Wasson, for respondent.

Before FERNANDEZ, HENDON, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM. The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, as Trustee for

the Certificateholders of the CWALT 2006-OA12 Mortgage Pass-Through

Certificates, Series 2006-OA12 (“Trustee”), petitions for a writ of certiorari seeking

to quash the trial court’s October 1, 2020 “Order Denying Bank of New York

Mellon, as Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim” and remand for dismissal of

Respondent Melida Abadia’s (“Borrower”), counterclaim below.

Based upon the record before us, the trial court’s denial of the motion to

dismiss on litigation privilege grounds constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of

law. DelMonico v. Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205, 1212 (Fla. 2013); AGM Invs., LLC v.

Bus. Law Grp., P.A., 219 So. 3d 920, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017); see Levin,

Middlebrooks, Mabie, Thomas, Mayes & Mitchell, P.A. v. U.S. Fire Ins. Co., 639

So. 2d 606, 608 (Fla. 1994); James v. Leigh, 145 So. 3d 1006 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014);

O’Malley v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 599 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA1992). We

therefore grant the petition for certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand

for dismissal of the Borrower’s counterclaim.

Petition for certiorari granted, order quashed, and cause remanded.

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