ProntoCash, LLC v. The Autoboutique of Miami, Inc., 3D21-1277

• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
• Writing for the Court: HENDON, J.
• Parties: ProntoCash, LLC, Appellant, v. The Autoboutique of Miami, Inc., et al., Appellees.
• Docket Number: 3D21-1277
• Decision Date: 08 December 2021

ProntoCash, LLC, Appellant,
v.
The Autoboutique of Miami, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 3D21-1277

Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

December 8, 2021

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County Lower Tribunal No. 20-4404 Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

Franz C. Jobson, P.A., and Franz C. Jobson (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.

Pugliese Law, P.A., and Marc C. Pugliese, for appellee Diana Fernandez.

Before EMAS, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.

HENDON, J.

1

ProntoCash, LLC ("ProntoCash") files a petition for certiorari seeking to quash an order discharging its lis pendens against the property of nonparty Diana Fernandez ("Fernandez"). We treat the petition as an appeal from a final order and affirm.

Daniel Gomez ("Gomez") owns The Autoboutique of Miami, Inc. ("Autoboutique"), an exotic car rental company. Autoboutique offered two cars for sale, a 2015 Mercedes S550 and a 2018 Dodge Ram 3500. Between December 26, 2018 and December 27, 2018, Autoboutique sold the two vehicles to an unrelated third party. That unrelated third party gave Autoboutique two checks to purchase the vehicles, one for $36, 500.00, and one for $47, 500.00. Autoboutique endorsed and presented both checks for payment to ProntoCash, a check cashing facility with whom Autoboutique routinely did business. ProntoCash gave Autoboutique the cash. Later, the checks were returned for insufficient funds and turned out to be fraudulent. When Autoboutique failed to work out a resolution with ProntoCash, ProntoCash sued Autoboutique to collect payment on two worthless checks pursuant to section 68.065, Florida Statutes, and for violation of the duty of good faith under the Uniform Commercial Code.

On February 20, 2020, ProntoCash filed notices of lis pendens against several vehicles owned by Autoboutique. ProntoCash also filed a notice of

2

lis pendens against a McLaren that is not owned by Autoboutique. The McLaren is owned by Fernandez, who is not a party to the suit between ProntoCash and Autoboutique. The record shows that Fernandez purchased her vehicle on October 19, 2019, from Formula One Miami, weeks prior to the fraudulent purchases of the Mercedes and Dodge Ram from Autoboutique. ProntoCash asserted below that Gomez was co-mingling his assets with that of Autoboutique and put vehicles in Fernandez's name to avoid any freeze on his assets during his separate, ongoing divorce. The record does not support this assertion as to Fernandez's acquisition of the McLaren. The record shows that title to Fernandez's vehicle was never in the name of, or transferred to, Gomez or Autoboutique. Fernandez moved to discharge the lis pendens. After a three-hour hearing at which the court heard from witnesses, including Fernandez, it found no nexus between the fraudulent checks issued for the two Autoboutique vehicles and Fernandez's ownership of her vehicle, and granted the motion to discharge the lis pendens. ProntoCash did not file a motion for rehearing, and instead filed a petition for certiorari seeking to quash the order discharging the lis pendens against Fernandez's vehicle.

ProntoCash contends that the order granting non-party Fernandez's motion to dissolve the lis pendens is a non-final order, not a final judgment,

3

and thus review by petition for certiorari is appropriate. Further, ProntoCash asserts that Fernandez has no standing to move to dissolve the lis pendens as she was required to move to intervene in the litigation between ProntoCash and Autoboutique. We find no merit in these arguments.^[1]

The determination of the finality of an order is a pure question of law and is subject to de novo review. M.M....