SHELDON GOODNER AND NAOMI GOODNER, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
MELVIN SHAPIRO AND RUTH SHAPIRO, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 orders entered after appellate mandate issued were void for lack of jurisdiction and reversed.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter orders regarding the merits of a case after an appellate court's mandate of affirmance has been issued without appellate consent.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to enter orders on the merits of a case after an appellate court issues its mandate affirming a final judgment, absent consent f…
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 follows that they were rendered without jurisdiction, and are therefore deemed to be nullities”
Court explaining why post-mandate orders lack validity
The trial court rendered a final judgment for defendants on December 10, 1976. After this court affirmed that judgment and issued its mandate on March…
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 Void Order cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
After the return, on March 16, 1978, of the mandate of this court in Shapiro v. Goodner, 356 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), which affirmed a final judgment for the defendants rendered on December 10, 1976, the trial court entered the orders now under review. In those orders, dated May 23, 1978 and June 19, 1978, the circuit court purported to rule, in the plaintiffs’ favor, upon the rights of the parties with respect to the deposit receipt agreement which formed the subject matter of the action itself and thus of the final judgment we affirmed. Since these orders were entered after the issuance of our mandate of af-firmance and without our consent,1 it -follows that they were rendered without jurisdiction, and are therefore deemed to be nullities. E. g., Modine Manufacturing Co. v. ABC Radiator, Inc., 367 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, Appellate Review, § 408 (1978). Accordingly, the “final order” of May 23, 1978, and the “order on defendants’ motion for rehearing,” dated June 19, 1978, are
Reversed.
. In large measure, these orders were, in turn, based on an earlier order of November 15, 1977, in which the trial judge sought to interpret the effect of the final judgment. Since that order was entered, also without leave of. this court, while the appeal taken by the plaintiffs was pending before us, it was therefore likewise void as one entered without jurisdiction. E. g., Stack v. Okaloosa County, 347 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…dvantage. Since the trial court proceeded, without our consent, while the appeal from the final judgment was pending in this court, it had no jurisdiction to enter these orders and they are therefore vacated and set aside. E. g., Goodner v. Shapiro, 367 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Stack v. Okaloosa County, 347 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Fla.R.App.P. 9.600(b), (c). Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions; post-judgment orders reversed. . This figure included $100 per month in…
-
Goodner v. Shapiro, 367 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
-
Pollock v. T & M Invs., Inc., 455 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…affirmed in Pollock v. Morton, 311 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). This was incorrect both because (a) the trial court was not authorized to depart from the terms of our affirmance of the fine absent our authorization and consent, Goodner v. Shapiro, 367 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and eases cited; and (b) since the condition upon which the fine was predicated, that is, compliance with the order has never been satisfied, it was improper to permit the appellee to escape its effect by simply ignoring its term…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Modine Mfg. Co. v. ABC Radiator, Inc., 367 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Goodner v. Shapiro, 367 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Stack v. Okaloosa Cnty., 347 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)