JOHN M. COLDIRON, PETITIONER,
v.
SEMINOLE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, 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.
The court denied a petition for writ of mandamus seeking return of money seized in a drug investigation, holding that a prior circuit court forfeiture order under the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act defeated the petitioner's claim to the funds.
Mandamus is unavailable to challenge a forfeiture judgment when the petitioner lacks a clear legal right to the money because it has already been forfeited by court order.
[1] Mandamus is not available to establish or challenge property rights already determined by a prior final judgment; a party dissatisfied with a forfeiture judgment must see…
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 intelligenceColdiron's $10,487 was seized as part of a drug trafficking investigation and subsequently forfeited to the Seminole County Sheriff's Department by ci…
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 Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We deny John M. Coldiron’s petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to require the Seminole County Sheriffs Department to return $10,487 to him seized as part of a drug trafficking investigation. Coldiron furnished to us an order of the Seminole County Circuit Court forfeiting the money to the Sheriffs Department pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act §§ 932.701-.707, Florida Statutes (2002). That defeats his claim to the money. Mandamus is a common law remedy used to enforce an “established legal right by compelling a person in an official capacity to perform an indisputable ministerial duty required by law.” Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); see Jackson v. Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 790 So. 2d 381, 386 (Fla.2000). Mandamus may not be used to establish rights. Fla. League of Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397, 401 (Fla.1992). Instead, a party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief, an indisputable legal duty, and have no adequate remedy at law. See Chapman v. State, 910 So. 2d 940, 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005). Clearly that has not occurred here. If Coldiron believes that the forfeiture judgment is flawed, he should seek relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. We express no opinion on the merits of any such effort.
MANDAMUS DENIED.
THOMPSON, ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Contractpoint Fla. Parks, LLC, 986 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 2008)…e existence and terms of its contract, the fact of the State’s breach, and the amount of damages. The contract suit allows the aggrieved party to establish that it has a “clear legal right” to damages. Cf. Coldiron v. Seminole County Sheriffs Dept., 936 So. 2d 42, 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Mandamus may not be used to establish [*1279] rights.... Instead, a party petitioning for a writ of mandamus must establish a clear legal right to the requested relief....”). Under the scheme set forth in section 11.066, th…
-
Traska v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Brevard Cnty. (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Fla. League OF Cities v. Smith, 607 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1992)
- Jackson v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 790 So. 2d 381 (Fla. 2001)
- Puckett v. Gentry, 577 So. 2d 965 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Chapman v. State, 910 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)