Arvida Corp. v. Hewitt, 82-602
| Decision Date | 21 July 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-602,82-602 |
| Citation | 416 So.2d 1264 |
| Parties | ARVIDA CORPORATION, etc., et al., Petitioners, v. The Honorable Robert S. HEWITT and Jon Earhart, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert M. Klein, West Palm Beach, for petitioners.
No appearance for respondents.
The trial court granted petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution in an order dated June 30, 1981; but on August 12, 1981, it vacated same upon respondent Earhart's motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. 1 In the two-part order of August 12th the trial court also ordered a hearing be held on petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution after petitioner had an opportunity to obtain the testimony of a witness. The motion to dismiss to which the second part of the August 12th order referred was obviously the same motion which had precipitated the order of dismissal and the vacation thereof. At that point the parties were back in the same position as they were when the motion to dismiss first was filed.
On September 18, 1981, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. Thereafter, petitioner sought rehearing which the court denied on February 22, 1981; he then filed the present petition for writ of certiorari.
First, the trial judge should not have been named as a respondent. Trial judges have enough to say blessings over without inappropriately being named as respondents in petitions for writ of certiorari. They should not be caused to wonder as to whether a response, or counsel who will file same, are necessary.
Second, the order in question is not reviewable by certiorari. Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, 370 So.2d 58 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Third, this proceeding could be considered timely only if the trial court had denied the rehearing of a final post-judgment order. Clearwater Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Sampson, 336 So.2d 78 (Fla.1976); Khem-Troll, Inc. v. Edelman, 351 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Meyerson v. Texsol, Inc., 385 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). To have such an order there necessarily must be an existing judgment. That is not the case here.
Fourth, petitioner inadvertently termed its petition "emergency" in nature. For the benefit of the Bar, we mention that section 3.2 of this court's Internal Operating Procedures provides in part:
Any request for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin County v. Makemson
...of naming trial judges as respondents in petitions for certiorari directed to the orders they enter, in Arvida Corporation v. Hewitt, 416 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).2 Section 925.036, Florida Statutes (1981) provides:(1) An attorney appointed pursuant to s. 925.035 or s. 27.53 shall, at......
-
Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales Del Ecuador
...the deliberate omission of this non-final order from those appealable under the appellate rules.") and Arvida Corp. v. Hewitt, 416 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) ("[T]he order in question is not reviewable by certiorari.") with Killearn Properties, Inc. v. Hammons Asphalt Paving, Inc.......
-
Southwinds Riding Academy v. Schneider
...462 So.2d 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Cumbey & Fair, Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 436 So.2d 173 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Arvida Corp. v. Hewitt, 416 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, the appellees' motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeal Dismissed. 1 Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of th......
-
Margulies v. Gutierrez, 86-453
...reviewed, one denying the petitioners' motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, is not reviewable by certiorari. Arvida Corp. v. Hewitt, 416 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Bowl America Florida, Inc. v. Schmidt, 386 So.2d 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Chalfonte Development Corp. v. Beaudoin, ......