GEORGE W. DUBREUIL, APPELLANT,
v.
JOYCE B. REGNVALL, F/K/A JOYCE B. DUBREUIL, APPELLEE
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 a cross-appeal from a divorce judgment, the Third District Court of Appeal addressed whether a judgment must contain the archaic phrase 'for which let execution issue' to enable a judgment creditor to obtain a writ of execution. Although the court found the phrase unnecessary as a matter of policy, it followed binding precedent requiring its inclusion.
Although the court expressed doubt about the necessity of the archaic phrase, it followed binding precedent (Murphy v. Murphy) holding that absent these words, a judgment debtor effectively receives a stay of execution. The court directed the trial court to add the phrase to the judgment so Mrs. Regnvall could obtain her writ of execution.
[1] A judgment creditor's right to execute upon a judgment is not dependent on the inclusion of the archaic phrase "for which let execution issue" in the judgment.
[2] The absence of the words "for which let execution issue" in a judgment may be construed as granting the judgment debtor a stay of execution.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the court's policy disagreement with the requirement but acknowledgment of binding precedent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Regnvall obtained a judgment in her favor in a divorce proceeding. The trial court refused to modify the judgment by adding the words 'for which …
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 Writ Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge.
On her cross-appeal, Mrs. Regnvall asserts that the trial court refused to modify the judgment in her favor by adding the words “for which let execution issue” and that, as a result, she has been frustrated in her efforts to obtain a writ of execution. While we do not believe that Mrs. Regn-vall’s right to execute upon a judgment entered in her favor should depend upon the judgment containing the archaic — but, admittedly, customary — words “for which let execution issue,” cf. Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (words “for which let execution issue” not essential to finality of judgment), we are bound to follow Murphy v. Murphy, 378 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), in which this court construed the absence of these words as effectively granting the judgment debtor a stay of execution and denying the judgment creditor the right to execute on the judgment. Were we free to do so, we would hold that, absent an express stay of execution, a judgment creditor’s entitlement to the issuance of a writ of execution is a concomitant of a final recorded judgment. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.550.1 But, reluctantly following Murphy, we perpetuate this ancient ritual by directing the trial court to add to the judgment the words “for which let execution issue” so that Mrs. Regnvall can obtain a writ of execution, to which she is indisputably entitled. In all other respects, the orders under review are affirmed.
Affirmed with directions to modify the judgment.
. Rule 1.550 provides:
"(a) Issuance: Executions on judgments shall issue during the life of judgment on the oral request of the party entitled to it or his attorney without praecipe. No execution or other final process shall issue until the judgment on which it is based has been recorded nor within the time for serving a motion for new trial or rehearing and if a motion for new trial or rehearing is timely served, until it is determined; provided execution or other final process may be issued on special order of the court at any time after judgment.
(b) Stay: The court, before which an execution or other process based on a final judgment is returnable, may stay such execution or other process and suspend proceeding thereon for good cause on motion and notice to all adverse parties.”
As the rule indicates, the words "for which let execution issue forthwith” do have meaning where a writ of execution is sought before the disposition of timely motions for new trial or rehearing. Sun Bank/Southwest v. Schad, 482 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), approved, Barnett Bank v. Fleming, 508 So. 2d 718, 721 (Fla.1987).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mellon United Nat'l Bank v. Cochran, 776 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…)), see Finst Dev. Inc. v. Bemaor, 449 So. 2d 290, 291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (appellant entitled to stay of judgment for attorney’s fees and costs only by posting good and sufficient bond as required by rule 9.310(b)(1)), see also DuBreuil v. Regnvall, 527 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Murphy v. Murphy, 378 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Reversed.…
-
Friedman v. Friedman, 825 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.” As authority to support her position that the addition of the words in the corrected judgment was material, counsel for appellant cited Du Breuil v. Regnvall, 527 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In Du Breuil the court cited our decision in Chan and noted its holding, which is directly contrary to appellant's position. Neither party cited Chan or GEICO Financial.…
-
Eliahu Abukasis v. MTM Finest, Ltd., 199 So. 3d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…s motion for rehearing. The first point raised by Abukasis, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the final judgment, is meritless. The final judgment contains the magic words “for which let execution issue.” See DuBreuil v. Regnvall, 527 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (perpetuating the ancient ritual in this court that the words “for which let execution issue” are necessary to obtain a writ of execution); but see Getman v. Tracey Constr., Inc., 62 So. 3d 1289, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (stating “…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Barnett Bank OF E. Polk Cnty. v. Fleming, 508 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 1987)
- Neville A. Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 378 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- SUN Bank/Southwest, N.A. v. Schad, 482 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)