Haft-Gaines Co. v. Reddick
| Decision Date | 12 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-844,HAFT-GAINES,77-844 |
| Citation | 350 So.2d 818 |
| Parties | COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Relator, v. The Honorable Thomas J. REDDICK, Judge of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frank E. Maloney, Jr. of Fleming, O'Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for relator.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.
Howard I. Weiss of Levine & Fieldstone, P. A., Miami, for Steve Weil.
The Writ of Prohibition is Granted.
The facts are that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an out of court settlement of this cause confirmed by letter. 1 In accordance with this settlement, attorneys for both sides executed and entered into a "Stipulation for Dismissal" filed with the court which read in toto:
COME NOW the parties Steve Weil and Haft-Gaines Company by and through their undersigned attorneys and stipulate that this action may be dismissed in accordance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420 with prejudice to both parties.
The disputed letter of settlement is not, and never was, a part of the record below, nor will we permit it to become so on appeal. Pursuant to the stipulation set forth above, the court then entered a final order on the basis thereof which simply said, "This action is dismissed . . . with prejudice to both parties."
No further pleadings were attempted until twenty-four days later when the plaintiff below filed a motion in the same cause to "compel return of property." As grounds, this motion set forth that the defendant below had failed to give over certain property pursuant to the out of court letter of settlement already referred to. Surprisingly, the prayer, at the conclusion of this motion, sought compensatory and punitive damages, costs and attorneys fees.
Predictably, a motion to dismiss was filed in opposition and the trial court correctly granted the motion to dismiss noting that it was without jurisdiction but that its ruling was without prejudice to the plaintiff below "to file a new law suit."
Four months after the original order of dismissal pursuant to the written stipulations therefor, the plaintiff below next filed in the same cause a "motion to enforce settlement agreement" which once again sought, in the prayer, compensatory and punitive damages, fees and costs. There then ensued a hearing relative to a further motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miraglia v. Geiger, 84-2460
...intention to proceed in excess of its jurisdiction, which justifies our issuance of a writ of prohibition. See Haft-Gaines Company v. Reddick, 350 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Accordingly, Writ of Prohibition is issued and the trial court is prohibited from proceeding further in this caus......
-
Carnathan v. Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 85-287
...Phillips, 205 Ark. 432, 169 S.W.2d 132 (1943). The trial court lacked jurisdiction to do anything further in the case. Haft-Gaines Co. v. Reddick, 350 So.2d 818 (Fla.1977); General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. Carpenter, 576 P.2d 1166 This case is a good example of the reason courts are......
-
Kight v. Capeletti Bros.
...court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion because it had dismissed the case with prejudice, relying on Haft-Gaines Co. v. Reddick, 350 So.2d 818 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). Appellee countered by asserting that it could not have been required to file a notice of lien prior to the final judg......