Wong v. von Wersebe, 78-190
| Decision Date | 19 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-190,78-190 |
| Citation | 365 So.2d 429 |
| Parties | James A. WONG and Sandra Wong, Appellants, v. Karsten Bodo VON WERSEBE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Edward T. Joyce, Chicago, Ill.; William P. Cagney, III, Miami, for appellants.
Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl and James E. Tribble and George N. Jahn, Miami, for appellee.
Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARKDULL, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
Appellants, James and Sandra Wong, seek review of an order denying their motion to intervene and to vacate peremptory writ of mandamus in an action to expunge from the public records copies of four restraining orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Petitioner-appellee, Karsten Bodo von Wersebe, owned certain real property located in Dade County conveyed to him by Select Builders of Florida, Inc. The Clerk of the Circuit Court had accepted for recording copies of four orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois which had enjoined and restrained Select Builders and other named corporations from transferring or otherwise disposing of any assets located in the United States belonging to Select or to the other corporations. Karsten Bodo von Wersebe filed the instant petition for alternative writ of mandamus seeking to have these orders expunged from the public records of Dade County in that the orders had not been domesticated, registered or certified in Florida by any Florida court or by a United States Court having jurisdiction within Florida and, therefore, had been unlawfully recorded. On November 4, 1977 the court entered a peremptory writ of mandamus directing the Clerk to expunge these improperly recorded orders from the public records of Dade County. Thereafter, on December 6, 1977 James and Sandra Wong, appellants herein (and plaintiffs in the Illinois District Court action), moved to intervene as parties respondent and to vacate the peremptory writ and alleged that they had caused the subject restraining orders to be recorded and, thus, were the real parties in interest as opposed to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, the named respondent. At the initial hearing on their motion, the Wongs were granted the opportunity to file any necessary pleadings to support their contention for intervention and another hearing was scheduled for December 28. Meanwhile the peremptory writ of mandamus was stayed....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ramos v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.
...members' diseases and/or conditions. 2. See Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Carlisle, 593 So.2d 505, 507 (Fla.1992); Wong v. von Wersebe, 365 So.2d 429, 430-31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). 3. See Levenson v. American Laser Corp., 438 So.2d 179, 183 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Hardwicke Cos., Inc. v. Freed, 299......
-
J. S., In Interest of, 81-1022
...of an abuse of that discretion. Nelson Bullock Co. v. Southdown Development Co., 132 Fla. 495, 181 So. 365 (1938); Wong v. Wersebe, 365 So.2d 429 (Fla.3d DCA 1978); Wogisch v. Tiger, 193 So.2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). See also The Florida Bar, Florida Civil Practice Before Trial § 11.9 (197......
-
Select Builders of Florida, Inc. v. Wong, 77-2457
...be and the same is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. 1 See: Companion case between the appellees and a third-party plaintiff, Wong v. Wersebe, 365 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). ...
-
Idacon, Inc. v. Hawes
...of discretion. In Interest of J.S., 404 So.2d 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), appeal dismissed, 412 So.2d 467 (Fla.1982); Wong v. Wersebe, 365 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). After final judgment, however, the general rule is that intervention may not be allowed. Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So.2d 435 (......