Lewis v. Turlington, BL-495
| Decision Date | 22 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. BL-495,BL-495 |
| Citation | 499 So.2d 905,12 Fla. L. Weekly 21 |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 21 Gerald A. LEWIS, Comptroller, State of Florida, Appellant, v. Ralph TURLINGTON, a citizen and taxpayer, and Foye W. O'Steen, J.E. Weatherford, and Louis Weissing, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Walter M. Meginniss, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellant.
Judith A. Breechner, Tallahassee, and Michael F. Coppins, of Douglass, Cooper & Coppins, Tallahassee, for appellees.
Gerald Lewis, Comptroller, State of Florida (Comptroller), appeals an order granting a Motion to Enforce Final Judgment filed by intervenors Foye W. O'Steen, J.E. Weatherford, and Louis Weissing (appellees). Comptroller contends, inter alia, that the trial court erred in permitting appellees to intervene in this declaratory judgment action after the conclusion of the action. We agree and reverse.
Turlington brought suit against the State of Florida, Department of Administration, Division of Retirement (Division) and the Comptroller seeking both declaratory relief and an injunction against the payment of any funds from the state retirement fund by the Comptroller or the Division pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 83-76, § 7, Laws of Florida, on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional. The lower court held the statute to be constitutional and the order of the lower court was affirmed by this court in Turlington v. Department of Administration, Division of Retirement, 462 So.2d 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In enacting Chapter 83-76, Laws of Florida the legislature intended to permit persons who held two state jobs (one elected and one non-elected) to retire from the non-elected position and to receive retirement benefits therefor while still keeping their elected positions and the salaries that went with the elected positions. The law as written was vague and did not clearly spell out its purpose. It was subsequently interpreted as permitting persons who held only one state job (if that job was an elected position) to "retire" from the job while also keeping the job and to simultaneously receive both retirement benefits and salary for performing the job. The appellees decided to take advantage of the flaws in the legislation and filed applications for retirement under Chapter 83-76. In their applications for retirement, the appellees specified retirement dates of September 1, 1983. The retirement application forms submitted by appellees specifically informed applicants that retirement benefits would be paid commencing 30 days after the retirement date selected, and further included the following caveat in boldface type: Once you retire, you cannot add additional service nor change options. Retirement becomes final when the first benefit check is cashed!!
On September 9, 1983, while appellees' retirement applications were being processed, the Secretary of the Department of Administration wrote to appellees notifying them that their applications were being processed but asking them to reconsider and to withdraw their applications. The letter indicated, however, that the decision was the appellees to make and that the Division would abide by their decisions.
On September 20, 1983 Ralph Turlington filed a suit for declaratory relief and an injunction seeking to have Chapter 83-76 declared unconstitutional. The trial judge being aware that the retirement of the appellees would at least arguably not become "final" until the checks scheduled to be sent out on September 30, 1983 were cashed, expedited the handling of the case. The judge received amended and second amended complaints on September 23 and September 27, convened a hearing on September 27, and issued his order finding Chapter 83-76 to be constitutional on September 28, 1983. However, in view of the certainty that an appeal would be taken he enjoined the defendants Comptroller and the Division from paying out any monies pursuant to Chapter 83-76 "until further order of a court of competent jurisdiction." In accordance with the representations of both parties that the monies should be set aside for the benefit of the ultimate recipients in the event Turlington should lose the appeal the trial judge directed that the money that would have been paid but for his order enjoining payment be invested and that the earnings thereon be reserved and be paid pro rata to the ultimate recipients of Chapter 83-76 retirement benefits, if any. The trial judge entered an amended final order on January 27, 1984 finding that Chapter 83-76, § 7 is constitutional. The amended order denied the plaintiff's prayer for injunctive...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US BANK NAT. ASS'N v. Taylor
...order granting motion to intervene after final judgment of foreclosure had been entered and after judicial sale); Lewis v. Turlington, 499 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (trial court abused its discretion in allowing third parties to intervene after entry of final We reverse the trial court'......
-
Sweetwater Country Club Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Huskey Co., 92-387
...Most of the Florida cases denying intervention as untimely involved motions filed after final judgment was entered. Lewis v. Turlington, 499 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). See De Anza Corp. v. Hollywood Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 443 So.2d 462 (Fla. 4th DCA While Oaks had filed its sui......
-
M.L.M., In Interest of, 88-804
...that injustice resulted from the court's grant of appellees' motion to intervene. This court recognized in Lewis v. Turlington, et. al., 499 So.2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), that there is a very narrow exception to the general rule that intervention may not be granted after a final judgment i......
-
Biden v. Lord
...injuriously affect the original litigants and when allowing intervention will further the interests of justice.” Lewis v. Turlington, 499 So.2d 905, 907–08 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, in order for the Delaware Attorney General to be permitted to intervene in the 2004 action, the trial......