Pino v. Bank of New York
76 So. 3d 927
Fla.2011Background
- Case concerns whether Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.350 requires dismissal after a certified question of great public importance and an initial merits brief; parties filed a joint stipulation to dismiss after settlement; the Court retained jurisdiction despite the stipulation; the Fourth District certified a question about sanctions for fraud on the court in a voluntarily dismissed mortgage foreclosure action; the Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and denied dismissal; the issue has broad implications beyond a single mortgage dispute; prior precedent allows retention of jurisdiction when the issue is important and likely to recur; the dissent would limit dismissal under 9.350.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the court retain to decide merits after a 9.350 stipulation? | Pino argues dismissal should follow stipulation. | Court may retain when issue is of great public importance. | Court may retain and decide merits despite stipulation. |
| Does mootness defeat jurisdiction when the issue is of great public importance? | Mootness should foreclose review. | Mootness does not destroy jurisdiction for important questions. | Mootness does not defeat jurisdiction. |
| Does Rule 9.350(a) bind the court to dismiss upon stipulation? | Stipulation for dismissal should bind the court to dismiss. | Court has discretion to retain and decide merits. | Court may exercise discretion to retain and deny dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (mootness does not destroy jurisdiction when issues are of great public importance or likely to recur)
- State v. Schopp, 653 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 1995) (retaining jurisdiction after notice of dismissal when public issues persist)
- Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., 734 So.2d 403 (Fla. 1999) (retaining jurisdiction for public-importance issue despite settlement and dismissal)
- Enter. Leasing Co. v. Almon, 559 So.2d 214 (Fla. 1990) (retaining jurisdiction to resolve conflict after settlement and dismissal)
- Ervin v. Capital Weekly Post, Inc., 97 So.2d 464 (Fla. 1957) (retaining jurisdiction to consider public-importance issue after settlement)
- Gregory v. Rice, 727 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1999) (recognition of discretion to retain merits in public-interest cases)
- Pace v. King, 38 So.2d 823 (Fla. 1949) (premise that mootness does not destroy jurisdiction on public-importance questions)
- Tau Alpha Holding Corp. v. Bd. of Adjustments, 171 So. 819 (1937) (Fla.) (early authority on public-interest questions and jurisdiction)
- Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Acanda, 71 So.3d 782 (Fla. 2011) (denied dismissal after oral argument; retention of merits)