IVEY v. IVEY (2023)

Glynis Ivey has filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari to quash the trial court's order requiring her to post a bond as a condition for allowing her to maintain her notice of lis pendens.¹ “It is well settled that to obtain a writ of certiorari, there must exist ‘(1) a departure from the essential requirements of the law, (2) resulting in material injury for the remainder of the case (3) that cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal.’ ” Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So. 2d 812, 822 (Fla. 2004) (quoting Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). “The last two elements are jurisdictional and must be analyzed before the court may even consider the first element.” Williams v. Oken, 62 So. 3d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 2011).

The petition in this case does not establish any material injury for the remainder of the case or demonstrate how any such injury cannot be corrected on postjudgment appeal. This is fatal to jurisdiction. Without a showing of these two elements, the Court does not have jurisdiction, and the petition is dismissed.

DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   This case was transferred from the Second District Court of Appeal to this Court on January 1, 2023.

COHEN, J.

WOZNIAK and WHITE, JJ., concur.