WILLIAM E. HAMLIN, A/K/A W. EARL HAMLIN, AND VIRGINIA W. HAMLIN, APPELLANTS,
v.
EAST COAST PROPERTIES, INC. AND ROGERS, TAYLOR & CO., 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 Hamlins appealed a trial court's order granting specific performance of a real estate option contract in favor of East Coast Properties, Inc., and awarding a real estate commission to Rogers, Taylor & Co. The appellate court affirmed the specific performance judgment on the merits and dismissed the challenge to a subsequent attorney's fees award as beyond its jurisdiction.
The trial court's February 11, 1992 judgment granting specific performance and awarding the real estate commission is affirmed. The appellate court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to consider the February 27, 1992 attorney's fees order because the Hamlins' notice of appeal was filed before that order was entered and was not amended, and a writ of prohibition is inappropriate because the attorney's fees have already been paid.
[1] A notice of appeal directed to a specific judgment does not confer appellate jurisdiction over a subsequent, separate order unless the notice is amended or a new notice i…
[2] Prohibition is a preventive remedy that cannot be used to undo or revoke an order that has already been entered and complied with.
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“Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction. It is preventive and not corrective in that it commands the one to whom it is directed not to do the thing which the supervisory court is informed the lower court is about to do.”
Establishes the legal standard for the writ of prohibition and its preventive nature, explaining why it cannot be used to undo completed actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Hamlins owned property subject to an option contract held by East Coast Properties, Inc. The trial court granted specific performance of the optio…
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 Excess Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
KAHN, Judge.
The Hamlins appeal from an order entered on February 11, 1992 granting specific performance of a real estate option contract in favor of the contract vendee East Coast Properties, Inc. The order also awarded appellee Rogers, Taylor & Co. (RTC) recovery from the Hamlins in the amount of $9,000.00 for a real estate commission due on the sale of the subject property, formerly owned by the Hamlins. Having carefully considered each of the eight points raised by the Hamlins in their challenge to the final judgment of specific performance, we find no reversible error, and accordingly affirm. See generally, Schmidt v. Matilsky, 490 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
By a ninth point in their brief, appellants challenge an order entered by the trial court on February 27, 1992, which awarded attorney’s fees to RTC. The record is clear that appellants filed their notice of appeal on February 26, 1992, and that such notice of appeal was directed to the aforementioned judgment granting specific performance. Appellants neither filed a new notice of appeal, nor amended their prior notice of appeal at any time. Accordingly, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider on appeal the February 27, 1992 order. Chase v. Turner, 560 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 402 So. 2d 614 (Fla.1981).
Recognizing the jurisdictional problems caused by their attempt to have us consider the February 27 order in conjunction with this appeal,* the Hamlins have filed in this court a petition for writ of prohibition seeking an order prohibiting the trial court from enforcing the attorney’s fee award to RTC on the theory that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter such order. The relevant facts reveal, however, that one day after the trial court entered the order regarding attorney’s fees, appellants actually paid the fees over to RTC at a real estate closing that was required by the terms of the court’s earlier order of specific performance. Thus, we must consider whether, on these facts, a writ of prohibition is properly sought. We discern the following applicable strictures to the remedy of prohibition:
Prohibition may only be granted when it is shown that a lower court is without jurisdiction or attempting to act in excess of jurisdiction. It is preventive and not corrective in that it commands the one to whom it is directed not to do the thing which the supervisory court is informed the lower court is about to do. Its purpose is to prevent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of something already done. It cannot be used to revoke an order already entered. State ex rel. Harris v. McCauley, 297 So. 2d 825 (Fla.1974), State ex rel. R.C. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, et al., 114 So. 2d 169 (Fla.1959), State ex rel. Shailer v. Booher, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Where proceedings sought to be prohibited have been completed and matters therein disposed of, prohibition may not be used for the sole purpose of establishing principles to govern future cases.
English v. McCrary, 348 So. 2d 293, 296-297 (Fla.1977).
Applying the foregoing statements of law, it is clear that prohibition will not lie to undo that which has already been con clusively accomplished pursuant to the trial court’s order of February 27, 1992. We therefore deny the Hamlins’ request for a writ of prohibition.
The February 11, 1992 judgment is AFFIRMED. The challenge to the February 27, 1992 order is DISMISSED.
WOLF and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. *
Appellate counsel for the Hamlins was not involved in the trial of this case nor did he file the notice of appeal.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Child. & Fam. Servs. v. In the Interest OF J.C., 847 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…s. See Klein v. Smith, 366 So. 2d 1206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). It cannot be used to revoke an order that has already [*492] been entered or to prevent the lower court from determining questions of jurisdiction. See Hamlin v. East Coast Properties, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); University of Miami v. Klein, 603 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The DCF’s writ improperly seeks prohibition with regard to a previously entered (August 30, 2001) order and impermissibly seeks to divest the trial court of its in…
-
Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Wood, 662 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy which should only be invoked in emergency cases where a lower court is without jurisdiction, in order to prevent an injury when there is no other adequate legal remedy. Hamlin v. East Coast Properties, Inc., 616 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Mandico v. Taos Constr., Inc., 605 So. 2d 850 (Fla.1992); Southern Neurosurgical Assoc., P.A. v. Fine, 591 So. 2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Prohibition is to be employed with great caution and “may not be used to divest a lower t…
-
State v. Mancuso, 355 So. 3d 942 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…revent the doing of something, not to compel the undoing of something already done” and “cannot be used to revoke an order already entered,” citing Stokes v. Jones, 319 So. 3d 166, 170–71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (quoting Hamlin v. E. Coast Props., Inc., 616 So. 2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)). Because Mancuso’s participation in veterans court postpones the state’s ability to proceed with a prosecution, we agree with the state’s argument that the transfer orders have an ongoing effect which supports prohibition…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Carey English v. McCRARY, 348 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1977)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Arthur Falkner v. Honorable John R. Blanton, 297 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1974)
- Momcilo Velickovich and Zorica Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- State of Fla. ex rel. R. C. Motor Lines, Inc. v. Boyd, 114 So. 2d 169 (Fla. 1959)
- Simonet v. Simonet, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Philip S. Shailer v. Hon. Stephen R. Booher, 241 So. 2d 720 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Chase v. Turner, 560 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Ricks v. State, 490 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Jule E. Schmidt and Ann L. Schmidt v. Matilsky, 490 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)