ORANGE FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, A CORPORATION EXISTING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND DAVID DYKES, A/K/A RAYMOND D. DYKES, AND DOROTHY DYKES, HIS WIFE; BETTY E. HENDERSON; EXCHANGE NATIONAL BANK OF LAKE COUNTY; AND KURFISS PROPERTIES, INC., D/B/A KURFISS FUNERAL HOME, 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.
Orange Federal Savings & Loan Association sought leave to file a belated motion for rehearing based on discovering that the U.S. Supreme Court's de la Cuesta opinion contained an error regarding the effective date of a federal regulation that was critical to the appellate court's decision. The court denied the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the mandate had already issued and the case had concluded.
The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion because the mandate issued on July 11, 1983, during the January 1983 term, and the case has concluded. Once a term ends and the mandate issues, the court has no jurisdiction over the cause.
[1] A court loses jurisdiction over a case after its mandate has issued and the relevant term of court has ended.
[2] A motion for rehearing or clarification filed after the court has lost jurisdiction will be denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
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“This minor disparity had no bearing on the outcome of the de la Cuesta opinion, but it would have been determinative in our case and would have mandated a contrary result.”
Establishes that the error in the Supreme Court opinion would have changed the outcome if known at the time of the original decision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrange Federal and the appellees were parties to a case decided on June 23, 1983, in which the court relied on the de la Cuesta Supreme Court opinion'…
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 Due On Sale Clause cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR CLARIFICATION
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Orange Federal Savings & Loan Association, has filed a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300(a), seeking leave to file a belated motion for rehearing and/or clarification. The basis for the motion is the representation by the movant that it has been informed that the United States Supreme Court erred in its de la Cuesta1 opinion in regard to its designation of the effective date of a 1976 regulation promulgated by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. That date was critical to the result of our opinion in this case.
In our opinion in Orange Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Dykes, 433 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), we relied, as did the appellant, on the references in the slip opinion of the de la Cuesta 102 S.Ct. at 3019, 3031 (fn. 24), designating July 31, 1976, as the effective date of the due-on-sale clause regulatory amendment now codified as 12 C.F.R. § 545.8-3(f). It now appears that, prior to publication in the United States Reports, these references were deleted when it was called to the attention of Justice Blackmun by counsel for the Federal Home Bank Board that while the provisions of section (g) of the new regulation became effective on July 31, 1976, those of section (f) became effective on June 8, 1976. This minor disparity had no bearing on the outcome of the de la Cuesta opinion, but it would have been determinative in our case and would have mandated a contrary result. We dealt with a mortgage executed on July 30, 1976.
But there is no relief available to the movant in this Court at this time. Our opinion was filed on June 23, 1983, and the mandate issued on July 11, 1983, during the January, 1983 term of this Court. See § 35.10, Fla.Stat. (1981). The July, 1983 term began on July 12, 1983 and we are now in the January, 1984 term. We have no jurisdiction over the cause at this time. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). As the Florida Supreme Court said in that case: “All things must have an end.” This case has ended. The motion is denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S.Ct. 3014, 73 L.Ed.2d 664 (1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Higdon v. State, 465 So. 2d 1309 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…end until the second Tuesday in July, 1985. See § 35.10, Fla.Stat. (1983); State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1981). See also Orange Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Dykes, 444 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Co., 397 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). This cause concerns a substantial issue of law bearing upon the proper administration of justice in the trial courts and has caused a division of opinion b…
-
Theisen v. OLD Republic Ins. Co., 468 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…ery case. AFFIRMED. COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1981); Orange Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Dykes, 444 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).…
-
Dade Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Brandy, 461 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED on the authority of Orange Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Dykes, 433 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rehearing denied, 444 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). ORFINGER and COWART, JJ., and R.W. POWELL, Associate Judge, concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Fid. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. DE LA Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141 (U.S. 1982)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges OF the Dist. Court OF Appeal, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1981)
- Orange Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dykes, 433 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)