MAGNUS ET UX., FINEGAN, SILVER, CAESAR ET UX., NEWMAN, D'ANTONIO, HABERMAN, GOFF ET UX., GIMBLE ET UX., RABINOWITZ ET UX., BLUMSTEIN ET UX., CITRON ET UX., GOLDES ET UX., GOODSTEIN, ET UX., HOROWITZ ET UX., KAUFMAN ET UX., LINK ET UX., MARKS ET UX., MEYERS ET UX., STEINBERG ET UX., STRASBERG ET UX., TROP ET UX., PETITIONERS,
v.
CENTURY VILLAGE, INC., RESPONDENT
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.
Petitioners sought common law certiorari to review a Circuit Court decision affirming a County Court judgment that enforced a $25 late charge for late rent payments under a condominium recreation lease. The Fourth District denied certiorari, holding that petitioners failed to demonstrate the level of error required to invoke the court's certiorari jurisdiction.
The court held that certiorari was not warranted because petitioners failed to demonstrate error sufficient to invoke the court's certiorari jurisdiction. The court emphasized that common law certiorari requires more than a mere demonstration of error and is only available when a judgment is rendered in the absence of competent evidence or involves material fundamental errors in law.
[1] Common law certiorari review of a circuit court's appellate decision requires a demonstration of more than mere error.
[2] A departure from the essential requirements of law justifying common law certiorari arises only when a judgment is rendered in the absence of competent evidence or involv…
Previewing 2 of 4 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 only when a judgment has been rendered in the absence of any competent evidence to support the judgment or material fundamental errors in applying the law that such a departure from the essential requirement of law will arise to justify a superior court to exercise its ancient power to issue the common law writ of certiorari.”
Establishes the stringent standard required for certiorari jurisdiction, requiring either absence of competent evidence or material fundamental legal errors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lessor of a condominium recreation facility sought to enforce a $25 late charge provision in the lease against individual condominium unit owners …
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 Appellate Review Standards cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for common law certiorari seeking to review an order entered by the Circuit Court sitting in its appellate capacity. Review by certiorari in such circumstances requires more than a demonstration of mere error. Griffin v. State, 367 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). Therein, this court quoted Kennington v. Gillman, 284 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973), as follows:
It is only when a judgment has been rendered in the absence of any competent evidence to support the judgment or material fundamental errors in applying the law that such a departure from the essential requirement of law will arise to justify a superior court to exercise its ancient power to issue the common law writ of certiorari.
Simply put, the petitioners are not entitled to a second appeal.
The issue litigated here was whether the lessor of a condominium recreation lease could, in its discretion, exact a $25 late charge for rents not paid within ten days after the date on which they were due. The condominium documents so provided and lessor filed suit in County Court seeking to enforce the $25 late charge against certain individual owners of condominium parcels. This case was tried before the County Court which found that the petitioners/defendants had violated the conditions of the lease and the $25 late charge was reasonable. They appealed to the Circuit Court asserting that there was no evidence to sustain the County Court’s decision. The Circuit Court concluded to the contrary affirming the County Court. Petitioners again assert the same argument to this court. We find that there has been no demonstration of error sufficient to warrant this court’s assuming certiorari jurisdiction.
Certiorari is, therefore, denied.
ANSTEAD, LETTS and BERANEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Linn v. Linn, 464 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…of the husband (and none appears on this record), it is error to require the husband to maintain life insurance for the benefit of the wife. We therefore quash that award. Blais v. Blais, 410 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Weinschel v. Weinschel, 379 So. 2d 145 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 390 So. 2d 827 (Fla.1980); Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); Wilbur v. Wilbur, 299 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Third, the trial court established that the wife’s remarriage or earning up to $15,0…
-
Eagan v. Eagan, 392 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…inarily award alimony to continue after death, provisions of dissolution judgments requiring the maintenance of life insurance for the benefit of a former spouse have been condemned as being tantamount to post-mortem alimony. Weinschel v. Weinschel, 379 So. 2d 145 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Dutton v. Dutton, 379 So. 2d 111 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Watterson v. Watterson, 353 So. 2d 1185 (Fla.1st DCA 1977); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Perkins v. Perkins, 310 So. 2d 438 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Wilbur v. Wil…
-
Parham v. Parham, 385 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…osition of this charge. In Re Estate of Freeland, 182 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1965); Aldrich v. Aldrich, 163 So. 2d 276 (Fla.1964); Ross v. Ross, 341 So. 2d 833 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Payne v. Payne, 201 So. 2d 590 (Fla.3d DCA 1967). Cf. Weinschel v. Weinschel, 379 So. 2d 145 (Fla.3d DCA 1980); Dutton v. Dutton, 379 So. 2d 111 (Fla.3d DCA 1979); Watterson v. Watterson, 353 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Blass v. Blass, 316 So. 2d 308 (Fla.3d DCA 1975) (holding that in the absence of a special circumstance justifying an…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Neely Horton Griffin v. State, 367 So. 2d 736 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Colon v. State, 284 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Kennington v. Gillman, 284 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973)