Schetter v. Schetter, 74--1537
| Decision Date | 09 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--1537,74--1537 |
| Citation | 330 So.2d 150 |
| Parties | Marcella SCHETTER, Appellant, v. C. B. SCHETTER and Ernest Tashea et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Eugene Orsher of Law Offices of John R. Harrington, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Thomas Duff and J. Carrington Gramling, Jr., of Duff, Brown & Gramling, Miami, for appellee Schetter.
The wife in this dissolution action appeals from the amended final judgment. In a previous appeal, Schetter v. Schetter, 279 So.2d 58 (4th DCA Fla.1973), this court partially reversed the final judgment and remanded with instructions that the wife be allowed to recover all properties she had conveyed to Tashea. The rest of the final judgment was affirmed, specifically the provision that the husband was entitled to one-half of all assets heretofore belonging to both or either of the parties to the marriage.
Upon remand, however, the trial court went beyond the confines of this mandate, Bryan and Sons Corp. v. Klefstad, 265 So.2d 382 (4th DCA Fla.1972); Fairfax Broadcasting Company v. Florida Automotive, Inc., 252 So.2d 854 (4th DCA Fla.1971).
The portion of the final judgment reversed, provided:
The trial court went beyond the scope of its mandate when, on remand, it ordered that the wife should be responsible for court costs for which in the final judgment Tashea had been responsible. While we are in sympathy with the motives of the trial court, that taxation of costs should follow the award of assets, this amendment went beyond the scope of the trial court's mandate and must be reversed.
Likewise, we reverse that portion of the amended final judgment wherein Tashea is allowed to retain the ownership of ABC Answering Service, Inc. This court held that the wife should be allowed to recover All assets she had conveyed to Tashea. As ABC Answering Service, Inc. was acquired with funds of the wife, she and husband should each have been granted a one-half interest in that corporation.
Lastly, in the amended final judgment the trial court noted that the parties had approved the sale of their home, and further determined that the furniture in the house belonged to Tashea. The furniture was not mentioned specifically in the final judgment. When all provisions of the final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mendelson v. Mendelson
...from the terms of an appellate mandate. City of Miami Beach v. Arthree, Inc., 300 So.2d 65 (Fla.3rd DCA 1973); Schetter v. Schetter, 330 So.2d 150 (Fla.4th DCA 1976); Ohio Casualty Group v. Parrish, 338 So.2d 910 (Fla.3rd DCA 1976). 6 Upon our affirmance of the order granting a new trial, t......
-
Ohio Cas. Group v. Parrish, s. 75--1799
...Without specific permission by the appellate court, that judgment cannot be interfered with by the trial court. Schetter v. Schetter, 330 So.2d 150 (Fla.4th DCA 1976). See also Lesperance v. Lesperance, 257 So.2d 66 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). We have considered the record, all points in the briefs ......
-
John Crescent, Inc. v. Peterson, s. 81-318
...to alter or evade the mandate of this Court. The trial court could not go beyond the confines of the mandate. Schetter v. Schetter, 330 So.2d 150 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The judicial sale held on April 25, 1977, should have been revived and the certificate of title should have been reinstated ......