Nicholson v. Ariko
| Decision Date | 09 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1185,89-1185 |
| Citation | 565 So.2d 843 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2044 Anthony NICHOLSON, Appellant, v. John G. ARIKO, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ralph C. Losey of Subin, Shams, Rosenbluth & Moran, P.A., Orlando, for appellant.
Mayanne Downs of Boroughs, Grimm & Bennett, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
Anthony Nicholson appeals a supplemental final judgment distributing to him $134,629.58 as his share of funds from a partnership in which he and John G. Ariko, Jr., had an interest. We reverse.
In an earlier appeal, this case was remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment based on a 1985 agreement requiring distribution of the partnership funds on an equal basis. Nicholson v. Ariko, 539 So.2d 1141 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), rev. denied, 548 So.2d 662 (Fla.1989). Thereafter, the trial court issued a supplemental final judgment, which was in accordance with this court's directions to distribute the proceeds equally. However, the order provided for an adjustment of the equal distributions by amounts that had been debited by the partnership for money each partner owed to the partnership. The court reduced Nicholson's distribution by $18,303.48 and Ariko's distribution by $2,716.67, the amounts owed by them to the partnership and deducted by it before making the distribution. Additionally, the trial court gave Ariko a credit of $13,095.90 for mortgage payments made by him that were owed by the partnership. Nicholson asserts that the set-offs and the credit for mortgage payments were erroneous since this court's mandate required an equal distribution.
The mandate of an appellate court is a final judgment in the cause, and compliance is a ministerial act to be performed by the trial court. Berger v. Leposky, 103 So.2d 628 (Fla.1958); O.P. Corp. v. Village of North Palm Beach, 302 So.2d 130 (Fla.1974); Milton v. Keith, 503 So.2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Thibodeau v. Sarasota Memorial Hospital, 449 So.2d 297 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); and Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). It is the duty of the trial court to enforce the mandate and not to stray from it. Florida Power & Light v. Flichtbeil, 513 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So.2d 585 (Fla.1988).
Review of the earlier mandate indicates that this court concluded that the parties agreed to share profits and deficits equally. The $13,095.90 represents the amount paid by Ariko for his share of mortgage payments owed by the partnership. This court was aware of this amount and considered it prior to issuing its earlier mandate, and no reimbursement was required...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilcox v. Hotelerama Associates, Ltd.
...does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape, or form. Nicholson v. Ariko, 565 So.2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Florida Power and Light v. Flichtbeil, 513 So.2d 1078 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 520 So.2d 585 (Fla.1988); Home ......
-
Thornber v. City of Fort Walton Beach
...constitute "a final judgment in the cause, and compliance is a ministerial act to be performed by the trial court." Nicholson v. Ariko, 565 So.2d 843, 844 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), and cases cited therein. "It is the duty of the trial court to enforce the mandate and not to stray from it." Id. W......
-
Snyderburn v. Moxley
...proceeds of the recovery.3 From a procedural standpoint, this case is nothing like Williams. It is more similar to Nicholson v. Ariko, 565 So.2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), where this court held that even though not expressly discussed in the court's opinion, an issue brought to the court and ......
-
Superior Garlic Intern., Inc. v. E & a
...a final judgment in the cause, and compliance [therewith] is a ministerial act to be performed by the trial court." Nicholson v. Ariko, 565 So.2d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). Upon issuance of a mandate, an automatic stay resulting from the posting of a supersedeas bond is automatically lifted, ......