Molly McIntosh v. Donald Wood
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledAugust 12, 2026
Docket3D2025-1157
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 12, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1157
Lower Tribunal No. 23-8461-CC-26
________________
Molly McIntosh,
Appellant,
vs.
Donald Wood,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the County Court for Miami-
Dade County, Lissette De La Rosa, Judge.
Counselaw, and Angelo M. Martin, for appellant.
Graham Legal, P.A., and H. Dillon Graham, III, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.
FERNANDEZ, J.
Molly McIntosh appeals the trial court’s Non-Final Order Denying
Landlord’s Motion for Immediate Issuance of an Order Lifting of the Stay of
Writ of Possession. In the related case, Wood v. McIntosh, 421 So. 3d 856
(Fla. 3d DCA 2025), this Court affirmed, per curiam, the trial court’s Order
Granting McIntosh’s Motion for Rehearing and Immediate Possession, and
the mandate was issued on November 13, 2025. Because the trial court’s
Stay of Execution and Writ of Possession Pending Appeal was dissolved
upon issuance of the mandate in the related case, we dismiss this appeal as
moot.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(e), Stay Pending Review,
states, “Duration. A stay entered by a lower tribunal will remain in effect
during the pendency of all review proceedings in Florida courts until a
mandate issues, or unless otherwise modified or vacated.” (Emphasis
added). See also Murphy v. Murphy, 378 So. 2d 27, 28 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA
1979) (“Even if there had been a prior stay, which there was not, it would
have terminated when the mandate issued under the express terms of
Fla.R.App.P. 9.310(e).”); State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818, 824 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2001) (“In general, the mandate in any case functions to end the
jurisdiction of the appellate court and to return full jurisdiction of the case to
the trial court. If a stay has been entered under Florida Rule of Appellate
2
Procedure 9.310, the mandate typically causes the stay to end. See rule
9.310(e).”); Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
(“The judgment of an appellate court, when it issues a mandate, is a final
judgment in the cause and compliance therewith by the lower court is a
purely ministerial act. In the absence of a stay ordered by the appellate court,
the issuance of a mandate affirming a judgment entitles the holder of that
judgment to a writ of execution as a matter of right.” (internal citations
omitted)).
“‘An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that
a judicial determination can have no actual effect.[’] ‘A case is “moot” when
it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist.’
‘A moot case generally will be dismissed.’” Paul Jacquin & Sons, Inc. v. City
of Port St. Lucie, 69 So. 3d 306, 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (internal citations
omitted).
Pursuant to the plain language of Rule 9.310(e), because the trial
court’s Stay of Execution and Writ of Possession Pending Appeal was
dissolved upon issuance of the mandate in the related case, we dismiss this
appeal as moot.
Dismissed.
3