KAREN J. HAAS, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN J. SPIEGEL, 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.
A former wife sought mandamus relief to compel the trial court to conduct further proceedings on a domestic violence injunction extension, after the appellate court had previously reversed and remanded for such proceedings. The court granted the mandamus petition, finding the trial court violated its mandate by simply vacating the injunction rather than holding the required evidentiary hearing.
The trial court is required to comply with the appellate mandate to conduct further proceedings. Compliance with an appellate court's mandate is a purely ministerial act that can be compelled by writ of mandamus. The trial court must conduct further evidentiary proceedings to allow the parties to offer evidence regarding the circumstances that led to the issuance of the original injunction.
[1] Compliance by a lower court with an appellate court's mandate is a purely ministerial act.
[2] A writ of mandamus is a proper remedy to compel a court to exercise its discretion and decide a cause.
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“When an appellate court's mandate issues, compliance by the lower court with that mandate is a purely ministerial act.”
Establishes that trial courts must follow appellate mandates and cannot exercise discretion in how to implement them.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a prior appeal (Spiegel v. Haas), this court found the trial court misconstrued its discretionary powers under Florida Statutes section 741.30(6)(b…
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 Exercise Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, former wife, seeks the issuance of a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to conduct further proceedings for a determination of whether her expired permanent domestic violence injunction should be extended pursuant to section 741.30(6)(b), Florida Statutes (1995), in accordance with this court’s opinion and mandate rendered in Spiegel v. Haas, 697 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
In that opinion we found the trial court had “misconstrued its discretionary powers under section 741.30(6)(b)” and reversed and vacated the extension of the injunction. Additionally, we directed the trial court to “vacate the order under review and remand for farther proceedings consistent with this opinion.” (emphasis added). On remand, the trial court initially scheduled an evidentiary hearing for September 5, 1997. On September 3, 1997, however, the trial court cancelled the evidentiary hearing and simply entered an order vacating and dissolving the extension of the injunction. The former wife argues that the court was required to conduct further proceedings and files this writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to follow this court’s mandate and decision and conduct further proceedings. We agree.
“When an appellate court’s mandate issues, compliance by the lower court with that mandate is a purely ministerial act.” Straley v. Frank, 650 So. 2d 628, 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see also State ex. rel. Price v. McCord, 380 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla.1980) (an appellate court’s issuance of a mandate is a ministerial act which may properly be compelled by a writ of mandamus). Furthermore, mandamus is a proper remedy to compel a court to exercise its discretion and decide a cause. See Calhoun v. Christie, 510 So. 2d 1000,1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
Our opinion contemplated that the parties would have an opportunity to offer evidence of the circumstances which led to the issuance of the original injunction. The court may, of course, consider the transcript of the earlier proceeding, if any. Therefore, we vacate the order dissolving the injunction and instruct the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with our opinion in Spiegel v. Haas. Accordingly, Haas’ petition for writ of mandamus is granted. Because we trust and believe that the trial court will comply with this decision, we withhold issuance of the writ at this time.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Contreras, Jonasz & Camacho, P.A. v. Fernandez, 45 So. 3d 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…aucom, 428 So. 2d 1383, 1385 (Fla.1983), the petition for mandamus to require that relief is granted. Flagship Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Testa, 429 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Garcia v. Garcia, 958 So. 2d 947, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); Haas v. Spiegel, 772 So. 2d 539, 540 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Quintana v. Barad, 528 So. 2d 1300 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Villas at Cutler Ridge Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Newman, 498 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Of course, we express no opinion as to the merits of the controversy and are certa…
Authorities Cited
- Straley v. Frank, 650 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- State ex rel. Lonnie Price v. Guyte P. McCORD, Jr., 380 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 1980)
- Spiegel v. Haas, 697 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)
- Calhoun v. The Honorable Francis J. Christie & Robert Rainier, 510 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)