Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for
Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge. Lower Tribunal
Alfonso E. Oviedo-Reyes, for appellants.
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP, and Tabitha S. Etlinger
(Tampa), for appellee.
EMAS, C.J., and SCALES and HENDON, JJ.
MOTION FOR REHEARING
grant the Appellant's motion for rehearing, withdraw our
previous opinion filed July 17, 2019, and replace it with the
Taufer ("Taufer"), Hilda E. Lacayo and Mauricio
Lacayo (Hilda and Mauricio collectively referred to as
"Tenants"), appeal from the trial court's
denial of their motions to vacate, reconsider, or stay the
order granting writ of possession to Wells Fargo Bank,
("Bank"). For the following reasons, we dismiss the
2014, the final judgment of foreclosure was rendered in favor
of the Bank. The Bank and Taufer subsequently entered into a
2015 stipulation, ratified by the trial court, in which
Taufer withdrew all of her post-judgment motions and
stipulated to the immediate issuance of a certificate of
title. Title was issued to the Bank.
between the final judgment of foreclosure and the stipulation
and title transfer, Taufer leased the premises to the
Tenants. When the Bank filed its 2015 motion for writ of
possession, and timely filed its notice to vacate, Taufer and
the Tenants objected, and filed the following four motions:
1) motion to reconsider or vacate the order granting writ of
possession to the Bank, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.530; 2) motion to reconsider or vacate the order
pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540; 3) motion
to stay the order granting writ of possession pending appeal;
4) motion to stay the order granting writ of possession for
45 days to allow the tenants to find new living arrangements.
All were properly denied by the trial court.
initial matter, the appellants herein lack standing to attack
the validity of the final judgment of foreclosure. The
Tenants took their interest in the property subject to a
recorded lis pendens and final judgment of foreclosure. The
Tenants are bound by that judgment. Furthermore, Taufer
waived her right to challenge the final judgment when she
stipulated to the title transfer. See e.g.,
Carlisle v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n for Harborview
2005-10 Tr. Fund, 225 So.3d 893, 895 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
(holding that as a purchaser post-lis pendens, Carlisle had
no rights in the property at the time the litigation
commenced, and he purchased the property subject to and bound
by any judgment rendered in the foreclosure action).
Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 cannot be directed toward
non-final orders such as the order granting the writ of
possession. See Hollifield v. Renew & Co., 18
So.3d 616, 617 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) ("Rule 1.540
authorizes a trial court to grant relief 'from a final
judgment, decree, order, or proceeding'-not from a
non-final order . . . ."). Motions for reconsideration
apply to "nonfinal, interlocutory orders, and are based
on a trial court's 'inherent authority to reconsider
and, if deemed appropriate, alter or retract any of its
nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final
judgment or order terminating an action . . .
.'" Seigler v. Bell, 148 So.3d 473, 478-79
(Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (quoting Silvestrone v. Edell,
721 So.2d 1173, 1175 (Fla. 1998) (citations omitted, emphasis
added)); see also Bettez v. City of Miami, 510 So.2d
1242, 1243 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) ("It is well settled in
this state that a trial court has inherent authority to
reconsider . . . any of its interlocutory rulings prior
to entry of a final judgment or final order in the
cause.") (emphasis added); see also Bryant, 182
So.3d at 930 ("Moreover, even if the motion to vacate
had been the proper procedural vehicle below, we are without
jurisdiction to review the trial court's denial of that
motion because it does not fall within the range of
appealable, non-final orders provided by Rule
issue raised by the appellants for the first time on appeal
is the federal Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of
2009. The appellants did not raise this issue
below and cannot raise it for the first time on appeal.
Gables Ins. Recovery, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins.
Corp., 261 So.3d 613, 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (holding,
in order to raise an issue on appeal, it must be presented to
the trial court, and the specific legal argument or ground to
be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation).
Finally, the arguments in support of the motions to stay are,
essentially, unauthorized and ...