Florida Power Corp. v. Griffin, 2531
| Decision Date | 30 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 2531,2531 |
| Parties | FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION, a corporation, Appellant, v. James W. GRIFFIN, et ux., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
S. E. Simmons, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Irving B. Levenson (of Sibley, Grusmark, Giblin, King & Levenson), Miami Beach, for appellees.
In an opinion reported in 144 So.2d 104, this court affirmed a final judgment awarding just compensation after jury verdict. On September 26, 1962, this court issued its mandate to the trial court. On November 16, 1962, the appellees, Betty and Carl C. Von Paulsen, filed their motion in this cause, praying that this court quash the trial court's order entered subsequent to the mandate, contending that the court below failed to enter the order as required by our mandate, in that the order did not require the payment of interest on a net fixed sum of money which was set forth in the final judgment.
In considering the motion, we are immediately confronted with a procedureal and jurisdictional question which requires a review of the proceedings of the cause to this point. Appellant, Florida Power Corporation, filed its petition seeking to condemn a right-of-way over certain lands owned by the appellees. Upon the entry of an order of taking, the petitioner deposited into the registry of the court, on May 6, 1960, the sum of $33,344.00 as directed in that order. Pursuant to the verdict of the jury, the court entered final judgment, awarding compensation and attorneys' fees substantially in excess of the amount deposited pursuant to the order of taking. The final judgment then required the petitioner to deposit an additional sum into the registry of the court, which additional sum was the amount that the judgment exceeded the deposit made pursuant to the order of taking. The judgment further required the petitioner to also deposit interest on the amount of such excess, computed (at the rate of 6% per annum) from the date of the deposit of the initial amount made pursuant to the order of taking, to the date when the additional sum would be deposited into the registry of the court. This additional sum, with the interest so computed, was deposited into the registry of the court by the petitioner. Thus, it may be seen that at this point the petitioner had deposited into the registry of the court all of the sums of money to which the defendants were each entitled in order to satisfy and pay them in full the just compensation, plus attorneys' fees and costs, as determined by the court. These funds were paid into the registry of the court for the use of these defendants, as required by § 73.13, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The allowance of interest on the sum awarded as just compensation, computed on the part thereof which exceeded the deposit made into the registry of the court, was pursuant to § 74.06, Florida Statutes, F.S.A.
While the total funds thus paid into the registry of the court for the use of the defendants remained on deposit, the petitioner filed its notice of appeal to this court. Neither the petitioner's assignments of error, nor the defendant Von Paulsens' cross assignments of error raised any question concerning interest as determined in the final judgment. Upon motion of the petitioner, the court granted supersedeas, and the petitioner gave bond 'conditioned to satisfy the judgment or any modification not increasing the amount thereof in full, including costs, interest or damages for delay in the event the appeal be dismissed or the judgment affirmed.' We affirmed the judgment.
The Von Paulsens then petitioned the trial court for the disbursement of the compensation awarded according to the judgment, contending that they were entitled to interest on the full amount of the judgment from the date of the entry of the judgment to the date of the hearing on the order directing disbursement. The court ordered disbursement to the Von Paulsens from the registry of the court of the sum of $5,639.25, that being the full amount determined to be due them. This amount constituted the full amount of the judgment, plus the sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Craft v. Clarembeaux
...only to provide review in causes in which the appellate court has acquired both jurisdiction and familiarity. Cf. Florida Power Corp. v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 270. The determination that the method of review prescribed in Rule 3.16(c) is inapplicable in the instant case does not,......
-
Hillsborough County v. Bennett, 4488
...deposited into court. Application of the statute in a similar manner is reflected in dicta in our opinion in Florida Power Corporation v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 270. Notwithstanding the distinction between the award of interest on the entire judgment in the Peeler case and the mor......
-
City of St. Petersburg v. Division of Administration, State Dept. of Transp., 72--726
...Beach County, Fla.App.1962, 144 So.2d 830, and treated therein as an appealable final order. Appellee cites Florida Power Corporation v. Griffin, Fla.App.1963, 150 So.2d 270 as authority that the order in question is interlocutory. The Griffin case, Supra, is distinguishable in that the ord......