Cummings v. City of Miami Beach, No. 41653

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtADKINS; ROBERTS
Citation263 So.2d 571
Decision Date31 May 1972
Docket NumberNo. 41653
PartiesA. J. CUMMINGS and Sadie Belk Cummings, his wife, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation, Respondent.

Page 571

263 So.2d 571
A. J. CUMMINGS and Sadie Belk Cummings, his wife, et al., Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a municipal corporation, Respondent.
No. 41653.
Supreme Court of Florida.
May 31, 1972.

Page 572

William G. Earle, of Kelly, Black, Black & Kenny, Miami, for petitioners.

Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., for respondent.

ADKINS, Justice.

By petition for certiorari, we have for review a decision of the District Court of appeal, Third District (City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715), which allegedly conflicts with a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (Coggan v. Coggan, 183 So.2d 839) on the same point of law. Fla.Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A.

The facts are stated by the District Court of Appeal, as follows:

'Essentially the point raised is one of procedure. It arose in the following manner: (1) A judgment for attorney's fees supplemental to a proceeding in eminent domain was entered in favor of the appellees against the City. (2) The City appealed judgment without supersedeas bond. (3) The judgment was affirmed. (4) Appellees demanded interest on the judgment from the date of the judgment to the proposed payment thereof. (5) Appellant tendered the amount of the judgment and the payment was accepted. (6) Appellees filed in the completed eminent domain proceeding a motion 'to determine liability of petitioner for interest on judgment for attorney's fees and costs.' (7) The 'motion to determine' was heard over the objection of the City that the procedure was improper. (8) The trial judge entered an additional judgment in the cause for the amount of interest that he determined was due on the original judgment for attorney's fees.' (Emphasis supplied) (City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715, p. 716.)

The District Court of Appeal then held as follows:

'We hold that the trial judge was without authority to enter a second judgment in the cause upon appellees' motion 'to determine liability.' After the appeal of a judgment and its affirmance by an appellate court, the trial court is without authority to take any further action in the cause other than to carry out the mandate of the appellate court.' (p. 716)

The District Court of Appeal then pointed out that the proper method of enforcing a judgment against a City is by a petition for writ of mandamus.

Coggan v. Coggan, Supra, involved an award of attorneys' fees in divorce proceeding. After the order allowing attorneys' fees was entered, a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Scharf v. Smith, No. 86-638
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1986
    ...See Hoover v. Scott, 44 So.2d 657 (Fla.1950); City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So.2d 571 (Fla.1972). The application, like the 1982 order it sought to amend, 3 was instead merely one to enforce and effectuate the rights of the appellan......
  • Sands v. Granoff, No. 86-2591
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 16, 1987
    ...498 So.2d 686, 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715, 716-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So.2d 571 (Fla.1972); Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Brown, 221 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA We have not overlooked the remaining points urged by the defendant,......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, No. 79-1781
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 1979
    ...was entitled to execution as a matter of right. See City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So.2d 571 (Fla.1972); King v. L & L Investors, Inc., 136 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Fla.R.Civ.P. For these reasons, the order under review is r......
3 cases
  • Scharf v. Smith, No. 86-638
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1986
    ...See Hoover v. Scott, 44 So.2d 657 (Fla.1950); City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So.2d 571 (Fla.1972). The application, like the 1982 order it sought to amend, 3 was instead merely one to enforce and effectuate the rights of the appellan......
  • Sands v. Granoff, No. 86-2591
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • June 16, 1987
    ...498 So.2d 686, 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715, 716-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So.2d 571 (Fla.1972); Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Brown, 221 So.2d 214, 215 (Fla. 3d DCA We have not overlooked the remaining points urged by the defendant,......
  • Murphy v. Murphy, No. 79-1781
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 27, 1979
    ...was entitled to execution as a matter of right. See City of Miami Beach v. Cummings, 251 So.2d 715 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971), cert. discharged, 263 So.2d 571 (Fla.1972); King v. L & L Investors, Inc., 136 So.2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962); Fla.R.Civ.P. For these reasons, the order under review is r......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT