LELA ATWELL
v.
CHARLES E. ATWELL
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 Florida Supreme Court reversed a final decree in an equity case because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant a motion for rehearing filed after the 30-day statutory period had expired. Once the appellate period began, the trial court lost power to modify its judgment.
The Circuit Court lost jurisdiction over the cause at the expiration of 30 days after filing and recording of the final decree, and therefore had no jurisdiction to enter an order granting a rehearing filed after that period. All orders and decrees entered after the improper rehearing order were void.
“Our judgment is that the Circuit Court at the expiration of thirty days after the filing and recording of the final decree lost jurisdiction of the cause and was without jurisdiction to enter the order granting the rehearing.”
Core holding establishing the jurisdictional time limit for trial courts in equity cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe circuit court entered a final decree dismissing a bill of complaint after a special master's report. More than 30 days later, after the time for f…
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 Jurisdiction Of Circuit Court cases and more on FLexlaw
Final decree was entered by the Chancellor pursuant to an order of reference to and report of special master and filed on the 25th day of May, 1931, which decree found the equities to be with the defendant and dismissed the Bill of Complaint.
This decree was subject to review on appeal to the Supreme Court.
On June 30th, 1931, after the time had expired in which motion for rehearing could be filed under Rule 90 of rules governing equity practice in circuit courts, complainant filed motion for rehearing which was granted and thereafter final decree was entered in favor of complainant.
From this final decree the case is now before us on appeal. There are several questions presented, but it is only necessary and proper for us to consider the first question, which is, “Whether or not the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to enter an order granting a rehearing when the motion for rehearing had not been presented within thirty days from the date of the filing of the final decree, which final decree was *353a decree which could be reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court.”
Our judgment is that the Circuit Court at the expiration of thirty days after the filing and recording of the final decree lost jurisdiction of the cause and was without jurisdiction to enter the order granting the rehearing. It follows that all orders and decrees made subsequent to the order granting the rehearing were of no force and effect. See Mabson v. Christ, 96 Fla. 756, 119 Sou. 131 and cases there cited.
For this reason, the decree appealed from should be reversed and it is so ordered.
Reversed.
Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Ellis, Terrell and Brown, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scheuermann v. Shamas, 97 So. 2d 314 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)…and Pace v. Pace, 99 Fla. 859, 128 So. 488, 489. The court was without jurisdiction to grant the order, four months after the final decree, opening the case for further litigation of the fee question, and that order was a nullity. Atwell v. Atwell, 111 Fla. 352, 149 So. 555, 556; Bartlett & Sons Co. v. Pan-American Studios, Inc., 144 Fla. 531, 198.So. 195, 196; and Jappe v. Heller, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d. 302. The subsequent order of July 24, 1956, to which this appeal or review was directed, was a nullity f…
-
Frumkes v. The Mortg. Guar. Corp., 173 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…rder of court, that when jurisdiction for deficiency decree was not reserved, application could not be made therefor in the foreclosure suit after the confirmation order became final. See Mabson v. Christ, 96 Fla. 756, 119 So. 131; Atwell v. Atwell, 111 Fla. 352, 149 So. 555; Cole v. Heidt, 124 Fla. 264, 168 So. 11; Jappe v. Heller, Fla.1953, 65 So. 2d 302; Scheuermann v. Shamas, Fla. 1957, 97 So. 2d 314.…
-
Bartlett & Sons Co. v. Pan-American Studios, Inc., 144 Fla. 531 (Fla. 1940)…on, motion, bill of review, original bill or rule to show cause, and the parties accorded an opportunity to be heard .and to make a record, if desired, which may be reviewed on appeal. Kurtz v. Kurtz, 112 Fla. 619, 150 So. 785. See Atwell v. Atwell, 111 Fla. 352, 149 So. 555, decided under the former practice, holding that the court had no jurisdiction more than thirty days after the filing and recording of the final decree to grant a rehearing. And see annotation relating to vacating final decree entered u…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mabson v. Christ, 96 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1928)