FMS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
IDS MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ETC., LORD & CO., LTD., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ET AL., 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.
FMS Management Systems appealed a foreclosure judgment and argued that the trial court lost jurisdiction to enforce the judgment during the appeal. The court held that absent a stay or supersedeas, the trial court may proceed with enforcement of a judgment even while it is pending appeal, provided such proceedings do not interfere with the appellate court's jurisdiction.
The trial court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment despite the pending appeal. Filing a notice of appeal does not automatically divest the trial court of all jurisdiction; the trial court may proceed with enforcement and other proceedings related to the judgment if such proceedings do not interfere with the appellate court's power to make its jurisdiction effective over the order on appeal.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a final judgment, even after an appeal has been filed from that judgment, provided the enforcement proceedings do not interf…
[2] A party seeking to stay enforcement of a judgment pending appeal must file a motion for supersedeas or stay pursuant to Rule 9.310(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedur…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“while a judgment is pending on appeal the trial court has no authority to change the status of a case or to interfere with the rights of a party under the judgment without the appellate court's permission”
FMS's argument, based on Leo Goodwin Foundation precedent, that appeal divests trial court jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIDS Mortgage Corporation obtained a Final Judgment of Foreclosure on a mortgage. FMS Management Systems, a tenant on the property, was permitted to re…
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 Enforcement Of Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
This is an appeal from a non-final order granting a motion for enforcement of a final judgment. The issue presented is whether the trial court lost jurisdiction when an appeal was taken from the final judgment so that the subsequent order, on appeal here, was improvidently entered.
Appellee, IDS Mortgage Corporation, obtained a Final Judgment of Foreclosure of a mortgage encumbering property in which appellant, FMS Management Systems, Inc., was a tenant. By virtue of a non-disturbance agreement, appellant was permitted to remain in possession under its lease, conditioned upon timely payment of rent and adherence to the other terms of its lease. An appeal was taken from the Final Judgment of Foreclosure. Subsequently, upon failure of appellant to pay rent, appel-lee’s motion to enforce the terms of the judgment requiring payment of rent was granted and, by the order on appeal in this case, appellant’s tenancy was terminated.
Appellant maintains that the filing of a Notice of Appeal directed to the Final Judgment of Foreclosure exhausted the trial court’s jurisdiction. The rule is stated by appellant that “while a judgment is pending on appeal the trial court has no authority to change the status of a case or to interfere with the rights of a party under the judgment without the appellate court’s permission,” relying on Leo Goodwin Foundation, Inc. v. Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C., 374 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). There are no doubt cases which contain general language to the effect that an appeal terminates the jurisdiction of the lower court to proceed with the subject matter of the appeal until the appeal is determined or unless authorized by the reviewing court. We announced this principle in Strauser v. Strauser, 303 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), relied on by appellant. However, we later expressly disapproved the Strauser principle in Waltham A. Condominium Ass’n v. Village Management, Inc., 330 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Again, in General Portland Land Development Co. v. Stevens, 356 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978) we used language which might be construed as invoking an automatic supersedeas in the event of appeal. We here expressly recede from that notion.
A party seeking to stay enforcement or other proceedings in connection with a judgment must, with the exceptions provided for by the rule, file a motion in the lower tribunal pursuant to Rule 9.310(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Hirsch v. Hirsch, 309 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). In the absence of supersedeas or stay, the lower tribunal may proceed in the cause, even as to the subject matter of the appeal, if such subsequent proceedings do not interfere with the power of the appellate court to make its jurisdiction effective as to the order on appeal. Waltham A. Condominium Ass’n. v. Village Management, Inc., supra.
The order in question here does not interfere with this court’s jurisdiction over the final judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY and MOORE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…e motion for contempt notwithstanding the appeal of the order compelling discovery to this court. Waltham A. Condominium Association v. Village Management, Inc., 330 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); FMS Management Systems, Inc. v. IDS Mortgage Corp., 402 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). However we now come to the question of whether the appeal is moot. The contempt proceeding is unquestionably civil in nature. In a civil contempt proceeding an offended party to the cause is primarily seeking relief, personal…
-
Costa Bella Dev. Corp. v. Costa Dev. Corp., 445 So. 2d 1090 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…with this court’s authority to decide the pending appeal since different issues were involved in the respective cases, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Lantz, 405 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); FMS Management Systems, Inc. v. IDS Mortgage Corp., 402 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), (5) appellant’s assertion that the summary judgment is too broad is wholly without merit since the trial court’s order clearly states that it encompasses only those owners whose title was recorded on or before January 8, 1979, a…
-
Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 982 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…ceable pending appeal. Id. at 473; see also Baker v. Vero Indian River Producers Ass’n, 124 Fla. 323, 168 So. 536 (1936) (accord); Katz v. N.M.E. Hosps., Inc., 842 So. 2d 853 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (accord); FMS Mgmt. Sys., Inc. v. IDS Mortgage Corp., 402 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (accord). Because Ms. Mann-Stack had posted no supersedeas bond and there was no stay pending appeal at the time the order of disbursement was entered, the trial court was within its authority to enter appropriate orders enforci…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Patterson v. State, 309 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Waltham A. Condo. Ass'n v. Vill. Mgmt., Inc., 330 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Strauser v. Strauser, 303 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Gen. Portland Land Dev. Co. & Greater Fla. Inv. Co. v. Stevens, 356 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- LEO Goodwin Found., Inc. v. The Riggs Nat'l Bank OF Wash., 374 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)