ERNEST P. RICCI, Appellant,
VENTURES TRUST 2013-I-H-R BY MCM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, its trustee, et al., Appellee.
final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
of nonfinal order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Barry J. Stone, Judge; L.T.
Case No. CACE 13-007175.
P. Ricci, North Kingston, Rhode Island, pro se.
Richard S. McIver and H. Michael Muñiz of Kass Shuler,
P.A., Tampa, for appellee.
P. Ricci, pro se, appeals the trial court's
nonfinal order overruling his objection to sale, denying his
motion to set aside certificate of sale, and directing the
clerk of the court to issue a certificate of title to
Ventures Trust ("Ventures") in an underlying
mortgage foreclosure action. Ricci argues that the trial
court erred in entering the order because prior to its entry,
Ricci filed a notice of removal to federal court and filed a
copy with the state court clerk. He argues that the trial
court did not have jurisdiction until the federal court
remanded the case and that the trial court's order was
therefore void because it was entered prior to the remand.
the case was effectively removed to federal court a few hours
before the order under review was entered, we reverse the
order under review. However, as we explain, our reversal is
without prejudice for the trial court, sua sponte or
upon motion, to immediately re-enter the order after vacating
it, with notice to the parties.
filed its foreclosure complaint, and eventually moved for
summary judgment, which was granted. Ricci appealed and this
Court affirmed per curiam. Ricci v. Ventures Tr.
2013-I-H-R By MCM Capital Partners, LLC, 253 So.3d 607
(Fla. 4th DCA 2018). Thereafter, Ricci filed his first notice
of removal to the federal district court, which delayed the
foreclosure sale until the federal district court remanded
the case in October 2017. Ventures maintains that during this
time, Ricci filed numerous bankruptcy petitions, which
Ventures argues were used to further delay the foreclosure
March 2018, Ricci filed his motion to set aside the sale, and
the trial court held a hearing. In support of the motion,
Ricci argued that he was not given proper notice of the
judicial sale. On April 4, 2018, the trial court entered an
order overruling the objection to the sale, finding that at
the time the notice of sale was served, Ricci was represented
by counsel, and that counsel for Ventures had properly served
Ricci's counsel with the notice. The trial court
concluded that an evidentiary hearing was not required
because Ricci was not entitled to personal notice by
Ventures. At 7:25 a.m. the same day, and prior to the order
overruling the objection to sale was filed, Ricci filed his
second notice of removal to federal court and filed a copy
with the state court clerk.
days later, Ricci filed his notice of appeal with this Court.
One week later, the federal district court rendered its
second order remanding the case, concluding that it did not
have subject matter jurisdiction.
appeal, Ricci asserts that the trial court lost jurisdiction
once he filed his notice of removal and filed a copy with the
state court clerk, which was prior to the entry of the order
denying his objection to the foreclosure sale. He contends
that the nonfinal order at issue is therefore void.
response, Ventures maintains that Ricci invited any error,
and that he failed to preserve the jurisdictional argument by
not first raising it in the trial court. Ventures further
contends that Ricci's objection to the sale failed as a
matter of law, and therefore, even if the trial court ...