FULLER ENTERPRISES, D/B/A JOYCE FULLER INTERIORS, PETITIONER,
v.
STAN MICHAELS AND IDA MICHAELS, 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.
Fuller Enterprises sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that affirmed the original county court judgment against it, after the circuit court had previously reversed that judgment as a sanction for the respondents' failure to file an appellate brief. The appellate court granted the writ, finding that the circuit court could not sua sponte review and affirm a judgment it had already reversed.
No. The circuit court may not, having once reversed a final judgment, sua sponte review and affirm that judgment fourteen months later. An appellate court must confine its review to the matters properly before it.
[1] An appellate court, after reversing a lower court's final judgment, cannot sua sponte review and affirm that same judgment fourteen months later.
[2] An appellate court's reversal of a lower court's judgment is a final determination of that issue.
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“No citation of authority is needed to support the proposition that an appellate court may not, having once reversed a final judgment of a lower court, sua sponte review that judgment again fourteen months later and affirm. To do so is a clear departure from the essential requirements of the law”
Establishes the core holding that an appellate court cannot sua sponte reconsider and reverse its own prior reversal of a judgment
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFuller Enterprises filed a claim in county court against the Michaels. The county court entered final judgment for the Michaels on July 13, 1981. Full…
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 Sanctions For Non-Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Judge.
The petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order entered by the circuit court in its appellate capacity, affirming a final judgment entered in the county court. For the reasons expressed below, we grant the writ.
The petitioner filed a claim in county court against the respondents. The following sequence of events then occurred:
1. On July 13, 1981, the county court entered a final judgment in favor of the respondents, denying any recovery to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal to the circuit court.
3. When the respondents failed to file a brief in the circuit court within the time allowed them, the circuit court issued a notice that if a brief were not filed by the respondents by a certain date, the circuit court would, as a sanction, grant the relief requested by the appellant. The respondents claim that they never received a copy of that notice; in any event, they never filed a brief on the merits in that appellate proceeding.
4. On May 7, 1982, the circuit court entered an order imposing sanctions, in accordance with its prior notice, in the form of a reversal of the judgment of July 13, 1981. In that order the circuit court specifically said, “The relief sought by appellant is justified by the record. Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and this case is remanded with instructions to determine and issue a judgment for appellant on the theory of quantum meruit.”
5. On May 28, 1982, the county court entered a judgment for the petitioner in the amount of $1,500. It appears from the record that the respondents may not have been given an opportunity to participate in the evidentiary hearing before the county court preceding the entry of this judgment.
6. The respondents then filed a motion in the circuit court for leave to apply to the county court to vacate the judgment of May 28, 1982. The circuit court granted the request and the respondents did apply to the county court to vacate that judgment.
7. The county court vacated its judgment of May 28, 1982.
8. The petitioner then filed an appeal in the circuit court from the order vacating the judgment of May 28, 1982. Inexplicably, the circuit court then affirmed the original judgment of the county court in favor of the respondents entered on July 13, 1981. As a ground therefor, the circuit court recited that “the argument presented by appellant is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of correctness with which the findings of the lower court is [sic] clothed.”
No citation of authority is needed to support the proposition that an appellate court may not, having once reversed a final judgment of a lower court, sua sponte review that judgment again fourteen months later and affirm. To do so is a clear departure from the essential requirements of the law and justifies issuing the writ of certiorari requested by the petitioner. Clermont Marine Sales, Inc. v. Harmon, 347 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
The only matter properly before the circuit court was the propriety of the action of the county court in vacating its judgment of May 28, 1982. Accordingly, we grant certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand to the circuit court for consideration of that issue. The petitioner is not precluded from seeking review of the circuit court’s appellate decision when rendered.
BOARDMAN, A.C.J., and SCHOON-OVER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Golden v. State, 509 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…e clearly not valid in this case, as the state admits. The remaining two reasons relate to whether appellant’s motion complied with the informational requirements of rule 3.850. The legal standard is one of “substantial compliance.” Majors v. State, 451 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Although appellant’s original motion was somewhat deficient, his motion for rehearing supplied the two missing items of information in detail sufficient to meet the “substantial compliance” standard. Because appellant has substa…
-
Jenkins v. State, 479 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…e trial court. Of those, Ground 5 is without merit. Likewise, Ground 2 does not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 3.850(f), as it fails to contain a state [*865] ment of the facts relied on in support of the ground. Majors v. State, 451 So. 2d 536 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Finally, the issue raised in Ground 1 is also without merit. Although there are apparently no Florida cases addressing this issue, the rule in most jurisdictions is that the issuance of an extradition warrant does not constitut…
-
Bustamante v. Elkin Gaviria, 741 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. See Fuller Enters. v. Michaels, 451 So. 2d 536, 537-38 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)(holding “[n]o citation of authority is needed to support the proposition that an appellate court 'may not, having once re [*1256] versed a final judgment of a lower court, sua sponte review that judgment again.... To do so…
Authorities Cited
- Clermont Marine Sales, Inc. v. Binion Gaines Harmon, 347 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)