CITIBANK, N.A., NATIONAL BANK OF DETROIT, PEOPLE'S TRUST COMPANY, BROAD STREET NATIONAL BANK OF TRENTON AND EQUIBANK, PETITIONERS,
v.
WALLACE R. PLAPINGER, RESPONDENT
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal enforced its prior mandate ordering production of financial documents by reducing the trial court's 90-day compliance period to 15 days, rejecting the trial court's attempt to effectively stay the appellate mandate pending Supreme Court review.
The trial court's 90-day compliance period constituted an unauthorized stay of the appellate mandate. Only the appellate court or the Supreme Court of Florida may grant a stay, and the trial court's delay violated the mandate. The court reduced the compliance period to 15 days from the date of the order.
[1] A lower tribunal cannot grant a stay of a mandate issued by an appellate court; only the appellate court or the Supreme Court can grant such a stay.
[2] Unreasonable delay in carrying out an appellate court's mandate will not be countenanced.
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“Only we, as the "lower tribunal," or the Supreme Court can grant such a stay.”
Establishes that only the appellate court or Supreme Court possess authority to stay an appellate mandate, not the trial court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner banks sought to compel production of the respondent's federal income tax returns and financial records of partnerships in which he 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 Stay Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On January 8, 1985, we granted certiorari in the above case and quashed the trial court’s order which denied the petitioners’ motion to compel the production of the respondent’s federal income tax returns and financial records of various general partnerships in which the respondent is a general partner. 461 So. 2d 1027. On January 25, 1985, our mandate issued to the trial court. The petitioners are now before us seeking enforcement of our mandate, alleging that the trial court has unduly delayed its enforcement by giving the respondent ninety days to produce the documents, in effect giving to the respondent an unauthorized stay of our mandate pending respondent’s efforts to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Florida.
We grant the petitioners’ motion and order that the respondent produce the documents in question within fifteen days from this date. We are convinced by the record before us that the trial court attempted to stay our mandate pending further review by the Supreme Court in the guise of giving the respondent ninety days to comply. Only we, as the “lower tribunal,” or the Supreme Court can grant such a stay. Robbins v. Pfeiffer, 407 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Aetna Insurance Co. v. Buchanan, 372 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 342 (Fla.1979). See Murphy v. Murphy, 378 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Moreover, we will not countenance unreasonable delay in carrying out our mandate. See Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co. v. Data Lease Financial Corp., 328 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1975) (six months delay in carrying out mandate violates mandate); Home Savings & Loan Association v. Epperson, 427 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) (trial court’s withholding of execution on judgment, however well intentioned, constitutes unauthorized effort to alter mandate); Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (trial court’s order allowing 180 days for restitution violates mandate ordering restitution).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order on remand is reversed insofar as it allows the respondent ninety days to produce the listed documents. The order is modified to allow the respondent fifteen days from this date to produce the documents. No rehearing of this opinion shall be allowed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mobley v. Mobley, 920 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…eives a mandate from an appellate court, it should carry it out). An unauthorized delay in carrying out a mandate is treated as a failure to carry out the mandate, which should not be countenanced by the appellate court. Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 469 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). Notwithstanding the fact that it took over six years to act, the lower court had jurisdiction to enter and amended final judgment pursuant to this Court’s mandate. [*101] The former husband next argues that the lower court e…
-
Young v. Hector, 884 So. 2d 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…e former wife’s counsel’s arguments which led the trial judge to the incorrect result that the former husband was needlessly forced to appeal.4 See Savage v. [*1028] Macy’s East, Inc., 719 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 469 So. 2d 144 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We remind counsel that, especially in the area of family law, great care should be taken to reduce emotional strife and to avoid vexatious and needless litigation. This Court will not hesitate to impose sanctions against parties…
-
Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Azbell, 154 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)…review, we allowed that decision to stand. After our mandate issued, the circuit court simply enforced its mandate. A reviewing court on first-tier certiorari review has the inherent authority to enforce its mandate. See Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 469 So. 2d 144, 145 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (after trial court attempted to stay appellate court’s mandate, appellate court ordered mandate’s enforcement). Accordingly, we deny the petition. PETITION DENIED. WALLIS and EVANDER, JJ., 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
- Blackhawk Heating & Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., 328 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1975)
- Robbins v. The Honorable Frederick Pfeiffer, 407 So. 2d 1016 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 378 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 461 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Goodman v. Broxmeyer, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Silverman v. Lichtman, 296 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- AETNA Ins. Co. v. Buchanan, 372 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Home Sav. & Loan Ass'n OF Fla. v. Epperson, 427 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)