TOBITHA CROFTON THOMPSON, PETITIONER,
v.
HONORABLE JAMES R. STEWART, JR., 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.
Trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify a final judgment that is pending appeal in the Supreme Court on a certified question, and a writ of prohibition is granted to quash the modification order.
A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to modify a final judgment once it is pending appeal, particularly when the case is before the Supreme Court on a certified question.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to modify a final judgment while it is pending appeal in the Supreme Court, even if the appeal is based on a certified question.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“The trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify an order under appeal.”
Establishing the foundational principle that trial courts lose jurisdiction over matters once they are appealed.
A husband sought modification of a dissolution judgment through a supplemental petition while the underlying final judgment was pending in the Supreme…
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 Pendency Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the writ of prohibition and quash the trial court’s order setting the supplemental petition for modification for trial.
The trial court does not have jurisdiction to modify an order under appeal. Campbell v. Campbell, 436 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), rev. dismissed, 453 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1984); Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977), appeal dismissed, 362 So. 2d 1050 (Fla.1978); Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
The underlying final judgment of dissolution is now pending in the Supreme Court on a certified question from this court. The pendency of the case in the Supreme Court deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to modify the judgment. See State v. Meneses, 392 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1981).
The husband may of course request relinquishment of jurisdiction from the court having jurisdiction if he deems it advisable, or he may petition the trial court for temporary relief pending appeal in accordance with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.600(c).
However, it is clear from the petition that he seeks elimination of permanent alimony and lump sum alimony from the final judgment, which is not relief “pending appeal” as contemplated within the appellate rule.
ANSTEAD, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Parsons v. Whitaker Plumbing OF Boca Raton, 730 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…enied. We write however to reiterate the general rule that once an appeal has been filed to review a final order/judgment, the lower court is divested of jurisdiction to enter an order affecting the subject matter of the appeal. Thompson v. Stewart, 569 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We recognize that in some cases an amendment to the final judgment or a subsequent fee judgment will not disturb the subject matter of the appeal. If questionable and upon request this court can relinquish jurisdiction to the tr…
-
Horowitz v. Horowitz, 139 So. 3d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…conduct a hearing on the modification petition and issue orders consistent with Rule 9.600(c). It may not, however, enter a final judgment disposing of the modification petition until the appeal is final and our mandate issues. Thompson v. Stewart, 569 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Campbell v. Campbell, 436 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). [*930] Background The parties stipulated pretrial to equitable distribution of their property. Key trial issues co…
-
Ehiabor v. Ehiabor (Fla. 1st DCA 2026)…tion for reconsideration, the appellant may then request that the appellate court relinquish jurisdiction in order for the trial court to have additional time to reconsider its nonfinal order. Send Enters., 390 So. 3d at 51 n.3; Thompson v. Stewart, 569 So. 2d 1372, 1373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Because Dr. Ehiabor was under no obligation to preserve the above argument prior to initiating this interlocutory appeal, we turn to the merits of the argument. III. On the merits, Dr. Ehiabor's argument that written fi…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Meneses, 392 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1981)
- Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Buckley v. Buckley, 343 So. 2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Int'l Bhd. OF Elec. Workers v. Richway, 436 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)