LORETTA FRIEDMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID FRIEDMAN AND MARK S. LONDON, ESQ., 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a corrective final judgment, holding that the words "for which let execution issue" are not essential for a money judgment to be final, and therefore the appellant's appeal was untimely as directed only to the corrective order.
The words "for which let execution issue" are not essential to make a money judgment final. The modification was not material, and therefore the first judgment was already final. The appeal from the corrective judgment is untimely and is dismissed.
[1] A money judgment is final for purposes of appeal even if it does not contain the words "for which let execution issue."
[2] A subsequent "corrective final judgment" that merely adds language regarding execution does not render the original judgment non-final or extend the time for appeal.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 words "for which let execution issue" are not essential in order for a judgment to be final”
Establishes the core holding that such language is not required for finality
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA money judgment was entered against appellant Loretta Friedman without the words "for which let execution issue." Appellees obtained a corrective fin…
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 Timeliness Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
KLEIN, J.
A money judgment was entered against appellant; however, it did not contain the words “for which let execution issue.” Ap-pellees, assuming those words were necessary, had a “corrective final judgment,” entered several weeks later which provided for execution to issue. Appellant’s notice of appeal is only directed to, and only timely as to, the second order. Appellees move to dismiss on the ground that the first order was final because the modification regarding execution was not material and therefore did not delay the time for seeking review. St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1971); Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Auto. Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
On all fours is Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), in which we held that the words “for which let execution issue” are not essential in order for a judgment to be final. We dismissed an appeal under identical facts. See also GEICO Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Kramer, 575 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Open MRI of Orlando, Inc., 780 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001).1
There is no need, either for purposes of finality, or for obtaining a writ of execution, for a money judgment to provide for execution to issue. Rule 1.550(a) provides in part: “Execution on judgments shall issue during the life of the judgment on the oral request of the party entitled to it or that party’s attorney without praecipe.” Execution only needs to be addressed if the court wishes to stay execution. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.550(b).
The appeal from the corrective final judgment entered on March 22, 2002 is dismissed because it is not timely as to the final judgment.
STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . We remind counsel for appellant of her ethical duty, under rule 4-3.3(a)(3), to disclose "legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel.” As authority to support her position that the addition of the words in the corrected judgment was material, counsel for appellant cited Du Breuil v. Regnvall, 527 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). In Du Breuil the court cited our decision in Chan and noted its holding, which is directly contrary to appellant's position. Neither party cited Chan or GEICO Financial.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Maxfly Aviation Inc. v. Cap. Airlines Ltd., 843 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…substantive and merely corrected clerical errors. See also B.G. Leasing, Inc., 372 So. 2d at 184 (no substantive material change in deleting two defendants from final judgment). This court, too, has reached similar results. In Friedman v. Friedman, 825 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), we found that a modification adding the words “for which let execution issue” was not material and therefore did not delay the time for seeking review. See also Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (words…
-
Freedom Insurors, Inc. v. M.D. Moody & Sons, Inc., 869 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…ng the amount of the bond by the amount held in the garnishment. We reject Freedom’s argument that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ of garnishment because of the language of the final judgment. See Friedman v. Friedman, 825 So. 2d 1010, 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (“There is no need, either for purposes of finality, or for obtaining a writ of execution, for a money judgment to provide for execution to issue .... Execution only needs to be addressed if the court wishes to stay executi…
-
Willis v. RED Reef, Inc., 921 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…final judgment should provide that the damages accrue post-judgment interest as set forth in section 55.03, Florida Statutes. While case law [*685] does not require the traditional language “for which let execution issue,” see Friedman v. Friedman, 825 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), as a practical matter, including the same will eliminate any issue in that regard should Red Reef apply for a writ of execution from the clerk of court. We find no merit to Red Reefs remaining points on appeal. Affirmed in part…
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
- ST. Moritz Hotel v. Jimmy C. Daughtry & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 249 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1971)
- Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Auto. Fiberglass Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- GEICO Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Kramer, 575 So. 2d 1345 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Neville A. Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- DuBREUIL v. Regnvall, 527 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Open MRI OF Orlando, Inc., 780 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)