The Bank of New York Mellon v. Bontoux
On a motion for rehearing en banc in a foreclosure-related certiorari proceeding, the Third DCA struck the motion and its appendix because the appendix contained extra-record documents filed without leave, the motion failed to state a proper ground under Rule 9.331(d)(1), and the motion advanced frivolous arguments and statements impugning the integrity of the appellate and circuit judges. The court issued an order to show cause under Rule 9.410(a) why sanctions should not be imposed on counsel, noting prior sanctions against the same attorney.
Key facts
- Bank of New York Mellon sought rehearing en banc in a foreclosure-related certiorari proceeding after the Third DCA issued an initial decision.
- Bontoux's counsel filed a motion for rehearing en banc with an appendix containing extra-record documents and arguments impugning the integrity of appellate and circuit judges.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Practitioners get a detailed roadmap of what will get a rehearing motion stricken and counsel sanctioned in the Third DCA: extra-record appendices, improper en banc grounds, reliance on vacated or reversed orders, and… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.