Robbins v. Pfeiffer
| Decision Date | 23 December 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1420,81-1420 |
| Citation | 407 So.2d 1016 |
| Parties | Patricia Dale ROBBINS, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Frederick PFEIFFER, Circuit Judge of the Circuit Court in and forOrange County, Florida, Orlando Executive Park, Inc., and Howard JohnsonCompany, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles R. Morgan of Morgan, Carratt & O'Connor, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Ronald M. Owen of Parker, Johnson, Owen & McGuire, Orlando, for respondent, Orlando Executive Park, Inc.
Janet R. DeLaura of Smalbein, Eubank, Johnson, Rosier & Bussey, P.A., Rockledge, for respondent, Howard Johnson Co.
The issue before us is whether a trial court has jurisdiction to order a stay of execution on a money judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.550(b), after the judgment has been affirmed by this court and the mandate issued, pending discretionary review by the Supreme Court of this court's opinion and decision.
A final money judgment was entered in the trial court on June 25, 1979 awarding plaintiff (petitioner here) compensatory damages, but denying her claim for punitive damages. On appeal the judgment was affirmed in its entirety. See 402 So.2d 442 (Fla.5th DCA 1981). This court's mandate issued on September 14, 1981, after an application to stay the mandate and for a stay pending review was denied. The Supreme Court denied a similar application for stay on September 29, 1981.
Thereafter, defendants moved the trial court for a stay of execution under Rule 1.550(b), pending determination by the Supreme Court of their application for discretionary review, and at a hearing held November 5, 1981, to which petitioner objected on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the trial court announced that it would enter such stay, and directed the preparation of a formal order. Prior to the entry of such order, petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of prohibition, contending that the trial court had no jurisdiction to stay execution in the posture of the proceedings here. Because the petition demonstrated a preliminary basis for relief, this court issued an order to show cause on November 5, 1981. This order has the effect in prohibition proceedings of staying all further proceedings in the lower tribunal. Fla.R.App.P. 9.100(f). Notwithstanding our order, on November 10, 1981, the trial court entered a written order staying execution pending review by the Supreme Court. 1
In response to our order to show cause, respondents now say that prohibition will not lie to prohibit an action already taken, because there are other appropriate remedies, citing English v. McCrary, 348 So.2d 293 (Fla.1977). Under different circumstances this position would be correct, but in view of the facts of this case, this argument overlooks the fact that the order of November 10, 1981 is a nullity as having been entered without jurisdiction. Rule 9.100(f). It would indeed be anomalous to hold that prohibition could be frustrated by merely ignoring an order of the appellate court which requires that all proceedings be stayed, because such would permit the trial court to defeat the appellate jurisdiction of this court. If the trial court order of November 10, 1981, has made prohibition an improper or inappropriate remedy, we need only treat the petition as one also for certiorari. Fla.R.App.P. 9.040(c).
The judgment of an appellate court, when it issues a mandate, is a final judgment in the cause and compliance therewith by the lower court is a purely ministerial act. O. P. Corporation v. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State, Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. South Beach Pharmacy, Inc.
...Sun Coast International, Inc. v. Department of Business Regulation, No. 92-3576F (DOAH Nov. 13, 1992). See Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) (compliance with mandate "is a purely ministerial act" At Southpointe's petition for fees and costs was timely, and HRS' failure......
-
Haines v. Black Diamond Props., Inc.
...Thibodeau v. Sarasota Mem'l Hosp., 449 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (citing O.P. Corp., 302 So. 2d at 131;Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)). Thus, the judgment, notice, or order confirming Defendants to be prevailing parties entitled to seek attorney's f......
-
Chase Manhattan Bank v. PRINCIPAL FUNDING
...judgment, with no further action required by the trial court to effectuate the opinion of the appellate court. Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So.2d 1016, 1017 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981) (holding that a judgment affirmed on appeal was final upon remittitur). Illinois has followed a similar rule. Brand......
-
Johnson v. Snyder
...asking this court to review the trial court's ruling. Treating her petition as one seeking a writ of certiorari, Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So.2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Robinson v. Gale, 380 So.2d 513 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), we hold that the tr......
-
Appellate stays and bonds.
...[10] See FLA. R. CIV. P. 9.310(a). [11] See Pabian v. Pabian, 469 So. 2d 189, 190 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1985). [12] See Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So. 2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. [13] See FLA. R. CIV. P. 9.400(a)(3). [14] See FLA. R. CIV. P. 9.310(b)(2). The automatic stay for a public body tha......