SR Acquisitions—Florida City, LLC v. San Remo Homes at Florida City, LLC
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 19042
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 6th2011Background
- SR Acquisitions–Florida, LLC petitions for mandamus to compel trial court to set a foreclosure sale date and deny further postponements.
- San Remo Homes at Florida City, LLC owned and mortgaged property in Miami-Dade; development of the homes stalled and mortgage payments fell behind.
- Merici and Starmac infused capital and formed SR Acquisitions to take over the loan; Dinuro Investments, LLC did not participate.
- After San Remo defaulted, SR Acquisitions sued for foreclosure; San Remo did not defend, leading to a foreclosure judgment.
- Dinuro claimed fiduciary breaches and illegitimacy of SR Acquisitions; Dinuro sought to intervene and move to vacate the judgment.
- The trial court postponed the foreclosure sale multiple times while considering Dinuro’s motions; Dinuro remained nonparty with no standing to intervene.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is mandamus appropriate to compel rulings on pending motions? | SR Acquisitions: trial court must rule; delay harms proceeding. | Dinuro: nonparties cannot compel relief; court may manage docket discretion. | Yes; mandamus granted to compel ruling on pending motions. |
| Can a nonparty seek relief from judgment in this context? | SR Acquisitions: nonparties cannot stall; only parties have standing. | Dinuro: seeks relief due to improper interference and interest. | Nonparty Dinuro has no standing; court must result in ruling on pending motions affecting the sale. |
| Should the trial court set or reset a foreclosure sale date? | SR Acquisitions: sale date should be set consistent with rulings on motions. | Dinuro: sale may be postponed pending motions; no fixed date until ruling. | The trial court must rule and set a sale date, rather than indefinitely postponing. |
| Did the court properly manage procedural interferences that affected progress of the foreclosure action? | SR Acquisitions: court must prevent improper interference by nonparties. | Dinuro: procedural maneuvers were legitimate challenges to the judgment. | Mandamus directed to eliminate improper interference and proceed with rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Estate of McDowell, 507 So.2d 607 (Fla. 1987) (mandamus when clear legal right and no other relief)
- Mason v. Cir. Ct., Fifth Judicial Cir., 603 So.2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (mandamus to compel discretionary action)
- Smith v. Lambdin, 971 So.2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (mandamus framework and lack of other relief)
- Flagship Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (trial court required to enter judgment after trial)
- Republic Fed. Bank, N.A. v. Doyle, 19 So.3d 1053 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (mandamus to ensure compliance with procedural rules)
- Phoenix Holding, LLC v. Martinez, 27 So.3d 791 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (trial court docket-management discretion)
- Rolle v. Birken, 994 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (docket management and setting of trial date)