AUDREY RANDOLPH V.TATAROW FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA AUDREY RANDOLPH, Petitioner, v. NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED. CASE NO. 1D04-5670 TATAROW FAMILY PARTNERS, LTD., Respondent. Opinion filed February 7, 2005. Petition for Writ of Mandamus -- Original Jurisdiction. Audrey Randolph, petitioner, pro se. No appearance for respondent. PER CURIAM. Because her notice of appeal was not timely filed, Audrey Randolph s appeal of a final judgment of foreclosure was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Randolph v. Tatarow Family Partners, Ltd., 881 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). By petition for writ of mandamus, Randolph now seeks an order compelling the circuit court to rule on her motion to proceed as an indigent on appeal, thereby allowing [her] brief to be entered so that the appeal can proceed. However, even a favorable ruling on her motion to proceed as an indigent will not result in Randolph s appeal being reinstated, nor has she alleged any other practical benefit that will accrue to her or anyone else by compelling the circuit court to rule on her motion. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Campbell v. State ex rel. Garrett, 133 Fla. 638, 183 So. 340 (1938)( mandamus relief will not be granted where the writ, if issued, would be without beneficial result and fruitless to the petitioner); see also Stupelli v. Dimitrouleas, 616 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED. ERVIN, BROWNING and HAWKES, JJ., concur. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.