Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. Eileen BLOCKER; Unknown Tenant(s), Bernard J. O'Connor, Millicent A. Lindner and James D. Cooley, Individually, and d/b/a Tropical Pest Control, Appellees.
Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) appeals an order staying a mortgage foreclosure action pending the outcome of arbitration in a related action to which FNMA is not a party. We treat the initial brief, together with FNMA's response to our order to show cause, as a petition for writ of certiorari.
In the 1997 foreclosure action, the defendant mortgagor had filed a third-party complaint against the sellers and an inspector upon whose report the mortgagor had relied in purchasing the property. The sellers filed a motion seeking a stay of the third-party action pending arbitration of a separate 1995 action involving the same parties and essentially the same issues as the third-party action. After a hearing on this motion, the trial court issued an order sua sponte staying the entire foreclosure action pending the outcome of arbitration in the 1995 action in order to conserve “litigant and judicial resources.” FNMA's motion for reconsideration, asserting that no party had requested a stay of the entire action, was denied.
We find that the trial court's order granted relief that was not requested, noticed, nor litigated by any party. See Kerrigan, Estess, Rankin & McLeod v. State, 711 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), and the cases cited therein. This denial of due process constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, for which FNMA has no adequate remedy on appeal from the final judgment in the case. The order is therefore QUASHED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, C.J.
ERVIN and JOANOS, JJ., CONCUR.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: No. 98-2295
Decided: February 18, 1999
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida,First District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)