J. R. CARTER AND CONCH COUNTRY REAL ESTATE, INC., JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
TERRY B. DORMAN AND CANAMA REALTY, INC., F/K/A CANADIAN AMERICAN REALTY, INC., 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.
A trial court's final judgment entered while an appeal from a nonfinal order was pending in the appellate court is void for lack of jurisdiction, even if the appeal is later dismissed, and must be set aside in favor of a judgment based on the jury verdict.
A final judgment entered by a trial court while an appeal from a nonfinal order is pending in the appellate court is void for lack of jurisdiction and must be set aside.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to enter a final judgment while an appeal from a nonfinal order is pending in the appellate court, and this jurisdictional defec…
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 intelligenceCarter and Conch Country Real Estate sought to set aside a final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4), claiming the judgment was…
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 Jurisdiction To Determine Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The order under review, denying a motion to set aside a final judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b)(4), is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to set aside the said final judgment and to enter a new final judgment based on the jury verdict previously rendered herein upon a holding that (a) the original judgment was entered without jurisdiction while an appeal from a nonfinal trial court order was pending in this court, De La Portilla v. De La Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116 (Fla.1974); Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 113 Fla. 668, 152 So. 849 (1933); Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(f); (b) this result is not changed by the fact that the above-stated interlocutory appeal was subsequently dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, Carter v. Dorman, 381 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), as this court still had jurisdiction to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the subject appeal which thereby deprived the trial court of jurisdiction to dispose finally of the cause during the pendency of said appeal, Sun Insurance Co. v. Boyd, 105 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla.1958); State ex rel.
B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Trammell, 140 Fla. 500, 192 So. 175 (1939) (court syllabus no. 6); and (c) the trial court now has jurisdiction to enter a new final judgment based upon the jury verdict previously rendered in this cause. Wagner v. Wagner, 372 So. 2d 510, 512 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sammons v. Sammons, 479 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…] court.2 Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(f) (“the lower tribunal may not render a final order disposing of the cause pending such [non-final appellate] review.”); Darden v. Police & Fire Civil Service Board, 423 So. 2d 543 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Carter v. Dorman, 385 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). 2. On the merits, the Colorado decree was not entitled to full faith and credit and its consequent enforcement because it constituted an in rem judgment, directly affecting the title to realty in another state, and was to that e…
-
Dep't OF Bus. Reg. v. Provende, Inc., 399 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…ay exercise jurisdiction for purposes of granting the requested relief. We note that every court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of its own jurisdiction. Sun Insurance Company v. Boyd, 105 So. 2d 574 (Fla.1958); Carter v. Dorman, 385 So. 2d 740 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). To the extent that the judicially created limitations prevent a circuit court from exercising its power to grant an injunction in a certain case, it may not accept jurisdiction, and in this limited sense may be said to be without…
-
Carter v. Dorman, 385 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. The B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Worth W. Trammell, 140 Fla. 500 (Fla. 1939)
- DE LA Portilla v. DE LA Portilla, 304 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 1974)
- Crichlow v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y of the United States, 113 Fla. 668 (Fla. 1933)
- SUN Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 105 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1958)
- Carter v. Dorman, 385 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Wagner v. Wagner, 372 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)