RUBY MOUNTAIN CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ATLANTIC COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND MEADOW VALLEY RANCHOS, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
BARBARA RAYMOND; LOUIS J. WINE; CLAIRE L. WINE; ARTHUR L. REICHARDT; DOROTHY J. LOWE; THELMA DARBY; JUDITH SHEPLAN; MILDRED SWANSON; LILLIAN GRAUBERT; DALIA ENTERPRISES, INC.; CHARLES W. GRANT, TRUSTEE; DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, STATE OF FLORIDA; AND JAMES H. MILLICAN, JR., RECEIVER, RESPONDENTS
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.
Ruby Mountain Construction and related petitioners sought certiorari review of three post-judgment orders entered while their judgment was on appeal. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's orders enforcing the judgment through discovery, costs, and attorney's fees awards, holding that an appeal without supersedeas does not strip the trial court of enforcement authority.
The trial court retains authority to enforce a final judgment and award costs and attorney's fees even while the judgment is on appeal, provided the appealing party has not obtained a supersedeas bond or stay. An appeal without supersedeas does not deprive the trial court of its enforcement powers or jurisdiction over post-judgment matters.
[1] A timely appeal of a final judgment does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to enforce that judgment.
[2] An appeal filed without a supersedeas bond does not divest the trial court of its authority to enforce a judgment.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“An appeal without supersedeas does not deprive the trial court of its authority to enforce the judgment.”
Establishes the core principle that trial courts retain enforcement powers during appeals lacking supersedeas protection.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRuby Mountain Construction and Atlantic Commercial Development Corp. obtained a final judgment against various respondents. While the judgment was on …
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 Stay Of Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
SHARP, Judge.
Petitioners ask this court to review, by writ of certiorari, three post-judgment orders entered by the trial court while the judgment was being appealed.1 We elect to treat this matter as an appeal from nonfi-nal orders pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4)2 and we affirm the orders of trial court.
Petitioners first challenge the trial court’s holding them in contempt for not complying with the final judgment. However, Petitioners filed their petition for certiorari more than thirty days after the trial court’s order was rendered. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review it. Lawrence v. Orange County; 404 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). As to the two remaining orders, the petition was timely filed.
The second order relates to discovery efforts by the respondents to enable enforcement of the judgment. The petitioners never filed a supersedeas bond or otherwise gained a stay against the enforcement of the judgment. The order appears to us to be a proper order to assist enforcement of the final judgment. It was designed to end apparent dilatory tactics on the part of petitioners. An appeal without supersedeas does not deprive the trial court of its authority to enforce the judgment. Glasser v. Hackett, 37 Fla. 358, 20 So. 532 (1896); Weintrab v. Weintrab, 390 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The third order awarded respondents costs, pursuant to the appealed final judgment, and as part of the order the trial court awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105 in connection with petitioners’ motion for rehearing because it was frivolous and had been filed solely for the purpose of delay. We conclude the appeal of the final judgment did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to make such awards. Roberts v. Askew, 260 So. 2d 492 (Fla.1972). These actions by the trial court would not affect or interfere with the subject matter of the appeal and thus impinge on the appellate court’s power and authority to decide the issues presented to it by the appeal. Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). But see Wilson Realty, Inc. v. David, 369 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979).
AFFIRMED.
DAUKSCH, C. J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . That appeal has now been dismissed by order of this Court because of the petitioners’ continuing willful refusal to comply with the requirements of the final judgment.
. Roberts v. Askew, 260 So. 2d 492 (Fla.1972); see Mogul v. Fodiman, 406 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arnold v. John R. Arnold, M.D. (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- Roberts v. Reubin O'D. Askew, 260 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1972)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Glasser v. Hackett, 37 Fla. 358 (Fla. 1896)
- Wilson Realty, Inc. v. David, 369 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Lawrence v. Orange Cnty. & The Honorable Joseph P. Baker, 404 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Hughes v. Sec. Eng'g, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Mogul v. Fodiman, 406 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Weintraub v. Weintraub, 390 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)