PAMELA JANOVITZ, PETITIONER,
v.
THE JUDGES OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPELLATE DIVISION, RESPONDENTS
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.
Mandamus petition granted because circuit court lacked jurisdiction to assess appellate attorney's fees fifty-four days after issuing its appellate mandate without recalling the mandate.
A circuit court loses jurisdiction to enter an order assessing appellate attorney's fees once it has issued its appellate mandate, even if the fee order is entered in the same term of court, unless the mandate is recalled.
[1] A circuit court loses jurisdiction to enter an order assessing appellate attorney's fees once it has issued its appellate mandate, even if entered in the same term, unles…
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 intelligencePamela Janovitz was an unsuccessful appellant in circuit court, and the circuit court issued an appellate mandate affirming the county court judgment.…
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 Loss Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Pamela Janovitz, who was an unsuccessful appellant in the circuit court below, in which it is urged that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter an adverse order assessing appellate attorney’s fees. We grant the petition for a writ of mandamus because, simply stated, the order was entered fifty-four days after the circuit court had issued its appellate mandate affirming the county court judgment under review without the court ever having recalled the mandate to enter such order— and, accordingly, (1) the circuit court had no jurisdiction to enter the subject attorney’s fee order, and (2) mandamus lies to require the circuit court to vacate this order. The fact that the attorney’s fee order was entered in 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 ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Judges OF the Eleventh Jud. Cir. v. Janovitz, 635 So. 2d 19 (Fla. 1994)…PER CURIAM. We review Janovitz v. Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 613 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), based on conflict with Finkel-stein v. North Broward Hospital District, 484 So. 2d 1241 (Fla.1986). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution and quash Janovitz. Pamela Janovitz leas…
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges OF the Dist. Court OF Appeal, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1981)
- Dyer v. City of Miami Emps'. Ret. Bd., 512 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)