GRACE BERGMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
SANDRA KAPLAN, 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.
Bergman petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash an order denying her motion to stay civil proceedings while parallel probate proceedings were pending. The Fourth DCA granted the petition, finding the trial court deviated from the essential requirements of law by refusing to stay proceedings that involved overlapping parties and material issues already on appeal.
The trial court deviated from the essential requirements of law in denying the stay because the risk of multiple conflicting orders and the potential for undermining issues currently on appeal created irreparable harm. The court granted the petition, quashed the order, and remanded with instructions to enter a stay pending the outcome of the probate proceedings.
[1] A court may grant a writ of certiorari to quash a non-final order when the lower court deviates from the essential requirements of the law.
[2] A trial court's denial of a motion to stay civil proceedings is a deviation from the essential requirements of law when the civil action involves the same parties and mat…
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“the risk of multiple conflicting orders and the circuit court's potential for undermining the issues currently on appeal to this court is real”
Establishes the court's reasoning for why a stay was necessary to prevent harm from overlapping proceedings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2003, Kaplan filed a petition in probate court seeking an accounting. The probate court entered final summary judgment requiring Bergman to provide…
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 Surcharge cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Grace Bergman, petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to quash a non-final order denying her motion to abate or stay civil proceedings to establish constructive trusts, for surcharge, and removal of a trustee. We find the circuit court deviated from the essential requirements of the law in denying the stay. We therefore grant the petition, quash the order, and remand the case to the trial court for entry of a stay.
In 2003, the respondent Kaplan filed a petition in probate court seeking an accounting. The probate court entered a final summary judgment requiring Bergman to provide an accounting. The court also found that Kaplan was barred from amending her original complaint in probate court. On a motion for rehearing, the court vacated its ruling on the time limitation, but continued to deny the motion to amend. Bergman has appealed that order. Kaplan then filed this civil action to impose constructive trusts, for surcharge, and to remove the trustee, thereby raising some of the same issues from the probate proceeding in the civil action.
The appeal proceedings in both the probate action and this civil action involve some of the same parties and at least one material issue, the timeliness of Kaplan’s claims under section 737.307, Florida Statutes (2001). As such, the risk of multiple conflicting orders and the circuit court’s potential for undermining the issues currently on appeal to this court is real.
In such circumstances, the trial court’s order denying the stay departed from the essential requirements of law resulting in irreparable harm. See generally REWJB Gas Invs. v. Land O’Sun Realty, Ltd., 645 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 654 So. 2d 919 (1995); Lightsey v. Williams, 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Robinson v. Royal Bank of Can., 462 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). In these types of cases, courts have recognized the injurious affect of multiple, conflicting orders and the need for the circuit courts not to interfere with the jurisdiction of the courts of appeal when issues are then pending before them. For this reason, we grant the petition, quash the order of the trial court, and remand the case for entry of a stay pending the outcome of the probate proceedings.
WARNER, GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rewjb GAS Invs. v. Land O'Sun Realty, Ltd., 645 So. 2d 1055 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Gottlieb v. State, 462 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Nash v. Nash, 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Layne L. Lightsey v. The Honorable Volie A. Williams, Jr., 526 So. 2d 764 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)