ROBERT M. DYER, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT BOARD, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1987-09-15
No. 87-204
Before HUBBART and BASKIN and JORGENSON, JJ.
512 So. 2d 338 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Dyer, a successful petitioner in a certiorari proceeding, appealed the circuit court's denial of his motion for attorney's fees and costs. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion because it was filed after the appellate mandate had issued and the term of court had expired.


Holding

The circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant the motion for attorney's fees and costs because it was filed after the appellate mandate had issued and the term of court had expired, and the petitioner made no request that the circuit court recall its mandate or show that the mandate was inadvertently issued due to mistake, fraud, collusion, or deceit.


Headnotes

[1] A circuit court lacks jurisdiction to grant a motion for attorney's fees and costs filed after the term of court in which the appellate mandate was issued has expired, ab…

[2] A court's jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs is divested upon the expiration of the term in which its mandate was issued, unless specific grounds for recalli…

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

Key Quotes

“the circuit court had issued its appellate mandate in the case (September 30, 1986), and the term of court in which the mandate issued had expired (November 10, 1986), see § 26.32, Fla.Stat. (1985), by the time the petitioner filed his motion for attorney's fees and costs (November 17, 1986)”

Establishes the temporal problem: the motion was filed after both the mandate issued and the term of court expired

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Dyer was a successful petitioner in a certiorari proceeding before the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. The circuit court issued its a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for attorney’s fees and costs filed by a successful petitioner in a certiorari proceeding before the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity. We affirm the order under review upon a holding that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to grant the said motion. We reach this result because (a) the circuit court had issued its appellate mandate in the case (September 30, 1986), and the term of court in which the mandate issued had expired (November 10, 1986), see § 26.32, Fla.Stat. (1985), by the time the petitioner filed his motion for attorney’s fees and costs (November 17, 1986), which reiterated a previously filed, timely application for said fees and costs, (b) the petitioner made no request below that the circuit court recall its mandate, and, accordingly, made no showing, as required by law, that the mandate was inadvertently issued in the prior term of court due to mistake, fraud, collusion, or deceit, and (c) the circuit court, under these circumstances, had no jurisdiction to grant the petitioner’s aforesaid application for attorney’s fees and costs. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Judges of Dist. Court of Appeal, Fifth Dist., 405 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla.1981); McGregor v. Hammock, 114 Fla. 259, 154 So. 191 (1934); see Martin v. Martin, 139 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla.1962); Wheeler Fertilizer Co. v. Rogers, 49 So. 2d 83, 86 (Fla.1950); Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal Church, 105 Fla. 683, 138 So. 630 (1932); see also State ex rel. Melbourne State Bank v. Wright, 107 Fla. 178, 183, 145 So. 598, 600 (1932); Alabama Hotel Co. v. J.L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. 825 (1924).

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • …determine the amount. Janovitz petitioned the district court of appeal for a writ of mandamus directing the circuit court to withdraw its award of attorney’s fees. Following its earlier decision in Dyer v. City of Miami Employees’ Retirement Board, 512 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), the district court of appeal held that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to enter the order on attorney’s fees after its mandate had issued. The circuit court’s appellate division then petitioned this Court for review. An ap…
  • Janovitz v. The Judges OF THE Eleventh Jud. Cir., 613 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
    …the same term of court as the appellate mandate cannot change this result. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges of the Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Fifth Dist., 405 So. 2d 980, 982 (Fla.1981); Dyer v. City of Miami Employee’s Retirement Bd., 512 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The petition for a writ of mandamus is hereby granted, but we withhold issuance of a writ of mandamus on the assumption that the circuit court will vacate the attorney’s fee order upon receipt of this opinion. It is so ordere…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw