Prologue — Mickens v. Allen Damron Construction Co.

/,) ewprers®

05-829 AUG 2 9 2005

IN THE

Supreme Court of the @rtte® Stites™

RONNIE MICKENS and

GLORIA J. MICKENS,

Petitioners

Vv.

ALLEN DAMRON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

joined with ;

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY

Respondents

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Second District Court of Appeals, Second District

State of Florida

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

PRO SE

RONNIE MICKENS and GLORIA J. MICKENS

5s 6420 Odom Road

LAKELAND, FLORIDA 33809

(863) 853-5991

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

FOR REVIEW

1. Whether the trial judge’s successor(s) and the Second

District Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred by exceeding

their Subject Matter Jurisdiction when the successor(s) judge

supplanted the trial judge’s Final Judgment On Petitioners’

Counter-claim with an arbitrary Final Judgment of Rescission

that both parties objected to and appealed and cross

appealed?

ps Whether the trial judge’s successor(s) and the Second

District Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred by arbitrarily

imposing a Final Judgment Of Rescission without affording

the parties any semblance of Due Process and Equal

Protection Of The Laws ?

3. Whether the Second District Court Of Appeals

fundamentally erred when it affirmed a Final Judgment of

Rescission that was un-supported by the pleadings, the

evidence, and un-requested by neither parties, especially

(i)

when it had already ruled in the first appeal that it could not

affirm a final judgment unsupported by the pleadings, the

evidence, and un-requested by both party ?

4. Whether the trial judge’s successors and the Second

District Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred by failing to

join indispensable parties and by failing to join Case No.

GCG-97-0455/2D03-0455/SC05-257 and Case No, GCG-98-

2977/2D04-2699/SC05-930 which was based on the same

identical transaction?

3 Whether the trial judge’s and the Second District

Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred by failing to apply the

principles of The Law Of The Case, Collateral Estoppel, Res

Judicata and Stare Decisis to the trial judge’s adjudicated

findings and whether Case No. GCG-98-2977/2D04-

2699/SC05-930 was precluded by preclusion law ?

6. Whether the trial judge’s successor(s) and the Second

District Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred by entering a

final judgment awarding $234,854.84 in damages without

(ii)

notice and hearing against Petitioners in favor of

Respondent(s) because Petitioners objected to participate in a

arbitrary remedy of rescission to Petitioners’ (Prevailing

Party) detriment ?

7. Whether the trial judge’s successor(s) and the Second

District Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred by unlawfully

exercising their jurisdiction (Under Color Of Law) to

authorize Respondent(s) to convert Petitioners’ title to

Petitioners Mickens’ real property without legal standing, a

right of action, a cause of action, and without procedural or

substantive due process and equal protection of the laws ?

8. Whether the trial judge’s successors and the Second

District Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred by unlawfully

exercising it jurisdiction (Under Color Of Law ) when it

granted Respondent Stewart Title Guaranty Company a Final

Judgment of Foreclosure and Equitable Lien that was based

on Stewart Title’s invalid mortgage in a purported lawsuit

Case No. GCG-98-2977/2D04-2699/SC05-930) against

(1i1)

Petitioners real property without Respondent Stewart Title

being a bona fide purchaser for value or possessing legal or

equitable standing, a right of action and a cause of action

against Petitioners ?

9. Whether the trial judge’s successor(s) and the Second

District Court Of Appeals fundamentally erred when they

entered two adverse final judgment against petitioners in

favor of respondents that were not based on the allegations

that respondents noticed, alleged, pled, supported with

evidence or litigated but failed to punish respondents for their

torts and crimes.

(iv)

(v)

LIST OF PARTIES’ JUDGMENTS SOUGHT TO BE

REVIEWED

ALLEN DAMRON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY

Case No: GCG-97-0455/2D03-0455/

SC05-257

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY

Case No: GCG-98-2977/2D04-2699/

SC05-930

LIST OF PARENT OR PUBLICLY HELD COMPANY

TO BE LISTED

STEWART INFORMATION SERVICE

CORPORATION (SISCO)

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

QUESTIONS PRESENTED.............-.cccsossescosesersesnseces i

PARTIES TO PROCEEDINGG............0cc0scessceosscossoeees Vv

TABLE OF AUTIIORIE IES... cccccscccrcocevecsevsveses Vii

Pe ec FTO aitsicsomntoneniniciniencscneinaiicsanehunbesbaipesoonn 2

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED............+.-- 6

STATEMENT OF THE CASE... .ccsccscesvecssvcsens 6

ARGUMENTS-POINTS J, Il, fil, IV, V,

Vi Waite ees dukasiickakandiesds nbhasarbancts 15

a i ecica ens sdesiasaicacpenivelcidcasasiiietesgubnastestiaaadaibe 30

(vi)

(vil)

TABLE GF AUTHORITIES PAGE

Aetna Life Insur.Co., v. Lavoie,

pgs £ ES 3) eee een nte 20

Allen Damron Construction Co., v. Mickens, 725

So. 1174, 1175 (FLA. 2nd DCA 1998).......... 18

Barkett v. Hoisy, 399 So. 2d 385

CP ae: SEGA CI iiss hwivuscicaninccsareeietas 4, 15, 21

Bohlinger v. Higginbothan, 70 So. 2d 911

(FU: FOG iivideeissin meinen 3

Chapoteau v. Chapoteau, 659 So. 2d 1381,

TIGGER Ci icicsddcsccccscsccnsercecias 3

Defreitas v. Defreitas, 398 So. 2d 991, 992

Ci ROB. 6c ince ee 18

Flagship National Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429

So. 26 GB: im. 36 DCA PGBS )iecccesssccnicncessovenies ses 4

Florida Power & Light Co., v. Canal Authority

of State of Florida 423 So. 2d 421

Gia 3 DCA WES. eS 3

Freeman v. Freeman, 447 So. 2d 963, 964

CFR. 1b DCA POG vesiccninctccressvtecdencrensevnio 17

Gay v. McCaughan, 105 So. 771 (Fla.1958)................. 15

Girard v. Trembley, 384 So. Ed 39

(Pia. 300 DCA TFG oiorcivecicivcitennse 25

Hart v. Hart, 458 So. 2d 813

(Fla. 4th DCA 1984)...........cccecccccscsccceccsceees 18

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. City of

Thomasville Ga. Ex rel. Karner, 100

Pia. 748, 130 So. 7 (1930)..........ccccscccscccccccsess 3

Locke v. Sandler, 156 Fla. 136, 23 So.

176 (1945)...... RT iin dank cihag ceptuesasoken seve 4

Lovett v. Lovett, 93 Fla. 611, 112 So. 768 (1927)...........16

Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926).......... 15

Mendelson v. Mendelson, 341 So 2d 811,

ea OEE, 20 ICA 977)... cose ccccerccccvesscsesess 7,19

Oakley v. Oakley, 439 So. 2d 1044

EE) Se 18

O.P. Corporation v. Village of North Palm

Beach, 302 So.2d 139 (Fla.1974)................. 7, 19

Ray v. State, 403 So. Ed 956, 960............... cece eee e eens 18.

Robinson v. Howe, 35 Fla. 73, 17 So. 368 (1895)......... 4,21

Roger & Ford Construction Corp., v. Carlandia

Corp. 626 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1993)............0.... 4, 26

Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 So.

pS 0 18

Santos v. Bogh, 334 So. 2d 833 (Fla. 3rd DCA

(ix)

St. Lucie Harvesting & Caretaking Corp. v.

Cervantes, 644 2d 7 (Fla. 4th DCA

bi sdibecte sachin inca wend cauinees alien 8, 25

Tutwiler Cadillac, Inc., v. Brockett, 551 So.

2d 1270 (Fla. Ist DCA 1974)..................c00 18

Walker v. City of Jacksonville, 360 So.

FB rs CE Te Bee ievctetersciceictensnsonencnserdans 25

, | Ta RE Sy CERRERMUD MMC hcnypedien Ulan nin nerf oa Tek 20

W.R. Cooper Inc., v. City of Miami Beach, 512 So.

2d 324, 326 (Fla. 3rd DCA1987).................. 4,21

303 S.W.2d 110, 294 S.W. 2d 308, 311,

Ws Ie TA PR eingttcistinnsase saticinassitsacdeaivaee

UG A. Cire Fey Bi reccndennveswasientiaseedsin 17

Article V, Section 1 Constitution State of Florida.......... 9

Article V, Section 5 Constitution State of Florida.......... 9

es CN Fie sectitesseciceieitnac iodinated chistes hccasnitbasihedns elesiedeSaeaae 10

ee NE Tics cenvchcnighsasiccactancscahemmiernnseheeniiclidsemandibioatatins 24, 28

BR: 9g SENN Monee sak eemnemnee Pome n Ce Scelialbinina 24, 28

yO icgiecenincnnencsitihinviansinnindiaiapivicabaniascuntta 6, 24

IN THE

Supreme Court of the United States

No.

RONNIE MICKENS and GLORIA J. MICKENS,

Petitioners,

vs.

ALLEN DAMRON CONSTRUCTION CO., and

STEWART TITLE GUARANTY CO., et al.,

Respondents.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the

Second District Court of Appeals, Second District

State of Florida

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Ronnie Mickens and Gloria J. Mickens respectfully

petition for a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of the

court of appeals in these two purportedly separate cases.

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinions of the Second District Court of Appeals

(App. A,B,C,D) are reported at 725 So. 2d 1174, 1175 (Fla.

2nd DCA 1998), 773 So. 2d 1194, 890 So. 2d 1139 (Fla. 2nd

2

DCA). The opinion of the Second District Court of Appeals

(App. D is not reported).

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

Jurisdiction is based on a state court of last resort that

has decided an important federal question in a way that

conflicts with the decisions of other state courts of last resort,

the United States Supreme Court, United States Constitution,

Florida Constitution, Florida Statutery Laws and Florida

Case Laws on the same points of law. The dates of the

judgments or orders that Petitioners Mickens are seeking to

be reviewed are January 27, 1998, July 12, 1999, October 2,

2003, May 14, 2004 and June 14, 2004. This court has

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. SECTION 1257.

An incorrect decision on subject matter jurisdiction is

fundamental error. It constitutes a departure from the

essential requirements of the law and warrants invoking

certiorari jurisdiction in the United State Supreme Court. See