JAMES MARTIN AND PATRICIA MARTIN, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH ROBERTSON AND MARGARET ROBERTSON, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a supplemental final judgment awarding money damages after the time for appeal had passed.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to amend a final judgment to award money damages when the original final judgment reserved jurisdiction only for taxing costs and attorne…
[2] A party aggrieved by a final judgment must seek relief by way of appeal, not by a motion to a successor trial judge.
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 intelligenceThe trial court initially entered a summary final judgment, reserving jurisdiction only for costs and fees. Appellees later filed a motion to amend 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 Motion To Amend Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANS, V.W., Jr., Associate Judge.
The trial court entered a summary final judgment on November 22, 1985. In the summary final judgment the parties were referred to as plaintiffs/counter-defendants and defendants/eounter-plaintiffs. The judgment found defendants/counter-plaintiffs, appellees here, to be the owners of certain horses at issue in the case. In the judgment the court mistakenly designated them as plaintiffs/counter-defendants, but this is of no significance inasmuch as in a subsequent proceeding enforcing the return of the horses it is clear that defendants/counter-plaintiffs, appellees here, were, indeed, found to.be the owners of the horses. The summary final judgment further found in favor of the plaintiffs/counter-defendants, appellants here, in both the complaint and counterclaim as to liability and that “ * * * defendants/counter-plaintiffs shall take nothing as to liability.” As indicated above, the defendants/counter-plaintiffs below are the appellees here. The judgment reserved jurisdiction only for the purpose of taxing costs and assessment of attorneys’ fees. This summary final judgment was entered by Circuit Judge Harold Vann.
On June 3, 1987, one year and seven months later, the appellees filed a motion to amend final judgment complaining of errors in the entry of the summary final judgment and sought a further evidentiary hearing on the issue of money damages. Circuit Judge C. Vernon Mize, as successor judge, held an evidentiary hearing, over objection of appellants, and entered a supplemental final judgment on September 21, 1987, in favor of the appellees and against appellants in the amount of $9,355.00.
The trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the supplemental final judgment with award of money damages. The remedy of appellees, defendant/counter-plaintiffs below, was by way of appeal to this court from the summary final judgment entered by Judge Vann and not by way of motion to a successor trial judge.
Reversed and remanded for entry of appropriate orders consistent with this opinion.
ORFINGER and DANIEL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gold Coast Media, Inc. v. Meltzer, 751 So. 2d 645 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…the Frumkes agreement necessitated and justified the result reached in that [*647] case. That agreement specifically stated that it became effective “[i]n the event that this [employment] Agreement is terminated by the Company” for cause. Frumkes at 533 So. 2d 943. It did not contain the phrase which was present in the Gold Coast contract: “or engagement by the company”. The Gold Coast agreement simply did not provide the narrow and unqualified limitation present in Frumkes. While Gold Coast’s position below…
-
Davalos v. Davalos, 592 So. 2d 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…rant a motion for rehearing and proceed to review and modify a judgment based on the same facts heard by the predecessor judge. Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1956); Batista v. Batista, 553 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Martin v. Robertson, 533 So. 2d 943 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Pratt v. Gerber, 330 So. 2d 552 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). There is a concomitant rule, however, that a successor judge may complete any acts uncompleted by his predecessor so long as a trial de novo is held where a final disposition…