STEVEN R. ERICKSON AND KATHRYN R. ERICKSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
SHERRY L. ERICKSON, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial court retained inherent jurisdiction to enforce its final equitable judgment regarding real property ownership by preventing harassment pending survey completion, and the enforcement order was properly entered.
A trial court possesses inherent jurisdiction to enforce its previously entered equitable orders regardless of whether jurisdiction was expressly reserved, and may issue enforcement orders to preserve the status quo pending completion of necessary surveys.
[1] A trial court retains inherent jurisdiction to enforce its previously entered orders without express reservation of jurisdiction, and possesses broad enforcement powers w…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is axiomatic that a trial court always has the inherent jurisdiction to enforce its previously entered orders.”
Court explaining the foundational principle that trial courts retain enforcement jurisdiction over their own orders.
Appellants sought review of an enforcement order issued by the trial court to prevent them from harassing appellee while a survey necessary to determi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Inherent Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellants seek review of an “Order on Emergency Motion for Enforcement and Clarification of Final Judgment, Contempt and for Injunctive Relief’ entered by the trial court in an effort to enforce an earlier final judgment entered by the trial court determining ownership of real property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4).
Appellants claim the order is the equivalent of an injunction, entered after the trial court had lost jurisdiction. However, it is apparent from the order that the trial court’s intent was merely to prevent appellants from harassing appellee by preserving the parties’ positions as they had existed on the date the final judgment was entered until a survey necessary to determine the boundaries of the property to be deeded to appellee could be completed. “It is axiomatic that a trial court always has the inherent jurisdiction to enforce its previously entered orders.” Huml v. Collins, 739 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (citations omitted). This is true regardless of whether the court has expressly reserved jurisdiction to do so. Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Brown, 221 So. 2d 214, 216 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (citation omitted). When, as here, the judgment to be enforced is equitable in nature, a trial court possesses broad powers. Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 715 So. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The trial court did not exceed the scope of those broad powers. Accordingly, the “Order on Emergency Motion for Enforcement and Clarification of Final Judgment, Contempt and for Injunctive Relief’ is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Giuffre v. Edwards, 226 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…ition to retaining jurisdiction over independent and collateral claims, it is axiomatic and inherent that a trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce its own orders, subject, of course, to review by courts of higher rank. See Erickson v. Erickson, 998 So. 2d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); see also Cooter v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990) (“A court may make an adjudication of contempt and impose a contempt sanction even after the action in which the contempt arose h…
-
Wisheart v. Wisheart, 338 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…risdiction to enforce its previously entered orders.” Huml v. Collins, 739 So. 2d 633, 634 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). This continuing jurisdiction exists regardless of whether the court reserves jurisdiction to enforce such orders. Erickson v. Erickson, 998 So. 2d 1182, 1183 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Seng v. Seng, 590 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). This continuing jurisdiction extends to enforcing marital settlement agreements incorporated into dissolution judgments. King v. King, 78 So. 3d 689, 690 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Superior Uniforms, Inc. v. Brown, 221 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Huml v. Collins, 739 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Gloria A. Ospina, D.D.S., P.A. v. Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co., 739 So. 2d 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Nivia Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 715 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)