Legal Opinion

Charles G. Nolan v. Mia Real Holdings, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided February 24, 2016No. 4D15-666PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGross, J.

We reverse the final judgment of foreclosure because the action was barred by the “two dismissal” rule of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420(a)(1). In successive ■actions, two different plaintiff/note holders sought to foreclose based on the same breach. Each plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of its lawsuit. For the purpose of rule 1.420(a)(1), we hold that the two noteholders — the original plaintiff and the subsequent assignee of the note — were the same “plaintiff’.under the rule, so that the second voluntary dismissal triggered an “adjudication on the merits.” Id.

Flagstar Bank…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service v. VastaSupreme Court of Florida · 1978
  2. Singleton v. Greymar AssociatesSupreme Court of Florida · 2004
  3. Lauren Kyle Holdings, Inc. v. Heath-Peterson Constr. Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2003
  4. Variety Children's Hosp. v. Mt. Sinai Hospital of Greater Miami, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1984
  5. Dove v. McCormickDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1997

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Sandra A. Forero and William L. Forero v. Green Tree Servicing, LLCDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2017
  2. ACC Holdings, LLC v. Todd RooneySupreme Court of Iowa · 2022
  3. Ana Villalona v. 21st Mortgage CorporationDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2016
  4. Villalona v. 21st Mortgage Corp.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2016

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API