Court Opinion

ID: 9957307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 14:00:49.307325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:15.540846
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10133     Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 04/04/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                      In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                         For the Eleventh Circuit

                           ____________________

                                    No. 24-10133
                            Non-Argument Calendar
                           ____________________

       FLA MORTGAGE CAPITAL CORPORATION,
                                                                  Plaintiﬀ,
       NON PERFORMING LLC,
       OSLO GROUP LLC,
                                                       Plaintiﬀs-Appellees,
       versus
       JOHN E. TYRE,
       a.k.a. John Edwin Tyre II,
       KAY TYRE,
       a.k.a. Lanita K. Tyre,
USCA11 Case: 24-10133      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 04/04/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  24-10133

                                                     Defendants-Appellants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 3:22-cv-01012-BJD-PDB
                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, NEWSOM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Upon review of the record and the responses to the jurisdic-
       tional question, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
       Appellants challenge the December 12 and 13, 2023 order and judg-
       ment in this foreclosure action granting the plaintiffs summary
       judgment and entering judgment against the appellants in the
       amount of $256,466.42. However, the December 12 order in-
       structed the plaintiffs to file a proposed final judgment of foreclo-
       sure, and the district court has not yet entered that judgment or
       otherwise foreclosed the plaintiffs’ security interest, ordered the
       sale of the relevant property if the monetary judgment is not paid,
       or established the terms for any such sale.
              Thus, the December 2023 order and judgment are not yet
       final because there remain outstanding proceedings to fully resolve
       the plaintiff’s complaint for foreclosure. See CSX Transp., Inc. v. City
       of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Burlington, Cedar
       Rapid & N. Ry. Co. v. Simmons, 123 U.S. 52, 54-56 (1887) (explaining
USCA11 Case: 24-10133      Document: 25-1       Date Filed: 04/04/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       24-10133                Opinion of the Court                          3

       that, in a foreclosure action, the proceedings are not final if there is
       no order of sale); see also Citibank, N.A. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 645
       F.2d 333, 337 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981). The order and judgment
       are not appealable under the doctrine of practical finality for the
       same reasons and because there has not been a showing of irrepa-
       rable harm. See Burlington, Cedar Rapid & N. Ry. Co., 123 U.S. at
       54-56; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 991-92 (11th Cir.
       2022).