PAULA SPEAR, PETITIONER,
v.
CLIFFORD SPEAR, 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.
In this Florida appellate case, the court holds that a trial court retains jurisdiction to award costs to a prevailing party even after an appellate court has issued a writ of prohibition precluding further proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. The decision clarifies that a court's power to determine its own jurisdiction includes the ancillary power to conduct related proceedings, including cost awards.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to award costs to a prevailing party even after an appellate court has issued a writ of prohibition. The court's inherent power to determine its own jurisdiction necessarily includes the power to conduct proceedings related to that determination, including the assessment of costs for the prevailing party.
[1] A court retains jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction.
[2] A court is empowered to conduct proceedings to determine its 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“A necessary adjunct to the hackneyed, but accurate, expression that a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction is the principle that the court is empowered to conduct the proceedings to determine that question just as it does any other issue.”
Establishes the core legal principle that a court's jurisdictional power includes the ancillary power to conduct related proceedings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePaula Spear, the ex-wife, prevailed in a prior proceeding (Spear v. Spear, 510 So. 2d 371) where this court issued a writ of prohibition precluding th…
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 Jurisdiction To Determine Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
After this court, in Spear v. Spear, 510 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), issued a writ of prohibition precluding the trial court from further proceedings on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the cause, the successful party below, the ex-wife, moved to tax costs in her favor. The trial judge denied the motion on the sole ground that he lacked jurisdiction to do so.
We reverse this order. A necessary adjunct to the hackneyed, but accurate, expression that a court always has jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction is the principle that the court is empowered to conduct the proceedings to determine that question just as it does any other issue.
Accordingly, it is apparently universally held that the party, here the petitioner-wife, who has prevailed on jurisdictional grounds is entitled to costs as is any other prevailing party. Pepper v. Old Colony Trust Co., 268 Mass. 467, 167 N.E. 656 (1929); Day v. Sun Ins. Office, 40 A.D. 305, 57 N.Y.S. 1033 (1899); Lerner v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 676, 242 P. 2d 321 (1952) (trial court has jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees after issuance of writ of prohibition by appellate court); see also McKelvey v. Kismet Inc., 430 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (court has jurisdiction to award costs after cause is voluntarily dismissed), pet. for review denied, 440 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1983); McBain v. Bowling, 374 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (same); Brodbeck v. Gonzalez, 336 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (same); Avistar, Inc. v. Armstrong, 497 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (court has jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees after cause is voluntarily dismissed); McBain, 374 So. 2d at 76 (same). In accordance with these views, the order denying Ms. Spear’s motion to tax costs, including those for the prosecution of the previous proceeding before this court, is reversed and the cause remanded for appropriate assessment of her recoverable costs.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rodriguez v. State, 239 So. 3d 147 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…a basis for jurisdiction and relief in certiorari. Also an 5 We have jurisdiction to both question our own jurisdiction and to determine that question, as we do here. See State v. Barati, 150 So. 3d 810, 813 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014); Spear v. Spear, 516 So. 2d 1132, 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). ---PAGE 7--- extraordinary writ granted in very limited circumstances, certiorari jurisdiction would require Rodriguez to establish a departure from the essential requirements of the law, resulting in material injury fo…
Authorities Cited
- Kessler v. Medow, 374 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- State v. Sagre, 430 So. 2d 919 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Spear v. Spear, 510 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Foister v. State, 510 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Aristar, Inc. v. Armstrong, 497 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Brodbeck v. Gonzalez, 336 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)