General Capital Corp. v. Tel Service Co., s. 4990

• Decision Date: 02 September 1970
• Docket Number: Nos. 4990,7477 and 67--106,s. 4990
• Citation: 239 So.2d 134
• Parties: GENERAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TEL SERVICE CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, G. E. Grass and Richard A. Noll, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 134

239 So.2d 134

GENERAL CAPITAL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. TEL SERVICE CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, G. E. Grass and Richard A. Noll, Respondents.

Nos. 4990, 7477 and 67--106.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 2, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1970.

Edward I. Cutler, of Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, for petitioner.

William B. Holland, of Jollay & Holland, Winter Haven, E. A. Bosarge, Bartow, and Sinclair & Louis, Miami, for respondents.

PIERCE, Judge.

This case is here upon petition of General Capital Corporation to review the judgment for costs entered by the trial Court.

The previous history of this litigation has been adequately depicted in this Court's previous opinion reported in 212 So.2d 369, which affirmed the final decree in appeal case No. 4990, reversed the amended final decree in appeal case No. 7477, and reversed the final judgment in appeal case No. 67--106, with directions to enter judgment in a specified reduced amount. The Supreme Court, in 227 So.2d 667, affirmed the holding of this Court.

It is unnecessary here to review the vast complex and complicated entanglements evolving out of the previous dealings and litigation between the parties. Suffice to say that the original final decree in the lower Court held certain transactions to be criminally usurious loans in violation of Florida Statutes and directed recovery by Tel Service of well over a half million dollars plus interest from General Capital. Appeal to this Court was taken from said decree by General Capital, and while the appeal was pending the Florida legislature in 1965 enacted a statute the effect of which was to materially reduce the amount of the judgment to which Tel Service was otherwise entitled. The legal applicability of the intervening legislation was upheld and the final result of the litigation was as stated.

After the parties had exhausted their litigious efforts on the merits, General Capital filed in the trial Court motion for allowance of Court costs, claiming only items incurred subsequent to the first appeal to this Court wherein the original final decree was affirmed. The trial Court entered order awarding a judgment for costs in favor of General Capital but limited the amount thereof to a one year's premium on a supersedeas bond which General Capital posted incident to the appeal from this Court to the Supreme Court. All other claimed items were disallowed because, in the opinion of the trial Judge, General Capital on the appeals 'prevailed only because of the intervening legislation'. In other words, both appellate Courts upheld the lower Court in entry of its original final decree, and therefore Absent intervening legislation, General Capital would have lost its appeals in toto. By petition filed here under Rule 3.16 FAR, 32 F.S.A., General Capital seeks review of said order. We affirm.

In the main, General Capital relies upon the formal, stereotyped verbiage contained in the mandates from this Court to the Circuit Court and from the Supreme Court to this Court, reciting in general language that General Capital 'do have and recover...