STATE OF FLORIDA ON RELATION OF MORTGAGE INVESTMENT FOUNDATION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES R. KNOTT, JUDGE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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 Florida Supreme Court granted a petition for prohibition to prevent a circuit court judge from entertaining a bill of review motion after the Supreme Court's mandate in a prior case had already directed entry of a specific performance decree. The Court held that once a Supreme Court mandate issued, the trial court lost all discretion and could only implement the mandated judgment.
The circuit court lacked jurisdiction to grant the bill of review motion. Once the Supreme Court issued its mandate directing entry of the decree, the trial court's discretion was removed and it retained only the ministerial power to execute the Supreme Court's judgment. The trial court could not entertain a bill of review without prior authorization from the Supreme Court.
“The trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the questioned order. The rendition of the opinion and judgment and the issuance of the mandate of this Court directing the entry of a decree of specific performance removed any discretion which the trial court had in the matter and left him vested only with the power to enter such decree in accordance with the requirements of the mandate.”
Establishes the central holding that a trial court loses discretionary authority once a supreme court mandate issues
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 case (Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc. v. Eller), the Florida Supreme Court reversed the trial court and directed it to enter a decree …
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 Bill Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
In Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc., v. Eller, Fla.1957, 93 So. 2d 868, we reversed the trial court and directed it to enter a decree compelling performance of a contract. A petition for rehearing and a motion to file a bill of review in the lower court were filed here by appellees, both were denied, the mandate of this Court was issued and was filed in the trial court. Shortly thereafter the trial court granted appellees’ motion to file a bill of review in the cause. The propriety of the latter order is questioned in these prohibition proceedings.
The trial court had no jurisdiction to enter the questioned order. The rendition of the opinion and judgment and the issuance of the mandate of this Court directing the entry of a decree of specific performance removed any discretion which the trial court had in the matter and left him vested only with the power to enter such decree in accordance with the requirements of the mandate. Our judgment superseded and nullified the previous judgment of the circuit court and the only power remaining in that court over the proceedings was to carry out and place into effect the order and judgment of this Court. State v. Citrus County, 1935, 117 Fla. 792, 158 So.
705.
Moreover, had this Court not acted adversely upon a motion for leave to file a bill of review, the lower court would have had no power to enter the questioned order without being first authorized to do so by leave granted by this Court. Bloxham v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., 1897, 39 Fla. 243, 22 So. 697; State ex rel. Reynolds v. White, 1898, 40 Fla. 297, 24 So. 160; Reynolds v. Florida Cent. & P. R. Co., 1900, 42 Fla. 387, 28 So. 861.
The motion of the petitioner for the issuance of the writ of prohibition notwithstanding the return of the circuit judge is granted, the questioned order is vacated and the circuit judge is directed to enter the decree required in the mandate in Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc., v. Eller, supra, and he is thereafter prohibited from proceeding further in said cause.
TERRELL, C. J., and HOBSON and O’CONNELL, JJ., and CARROLL and WIGGINTON, District Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Berger v. Leposky, 103 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1958)…affecting the cause. State ex rel. Dowling Co. v. Parks, 99 Fla. 1264, 128 So. 837; Hunter v. Kearley, 155 Fla. 222, 19 So. 2d 788; Beach Resort Hotel Corp. v. Wieder, Fla., 90 So. 2d 52; State ex rel. Mortgage Inv. Foundation, Inc., v. Knott, Fla., 97 So. 2d 265. The entry of the mandate in question therefore, in practical effect, left the litigation in a status equivalent to that where a peremptory writ had issued in a mandamus proceeding before a trial court. The power of an appellate court to accomplish…
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Earl William Paluska, Jr. v. The Honorable Jos. S. White, 162 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
-
King v. L & L Invs., Inc., 136 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)…the matters in the plaintiff’s said motion. The cause is now before us on appellants’ petition for prohibition and for a writ to carry into effect the mandate. In the case of State ex rel. Mortgage Investment Foundation, Inc. v. Knott, Fla. 1957, 97 So. 2d 265, the Supreme Court dealt with a similar situation and granted prohibition. In that case the Supreme Court had reversed the trial court and directed it to enter a decree for specific performance of a contract. A petition for rehearing and a motion to…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State of Fla. ex rel. William H. Reynolds as Comptroller of the State of Fla. v. White, 40 Fla. 297 (Fla. 1898)
- Bloxham v. The Fla. Cent. & Peninsular R.R. Co., 39 Fla. 243 (Fla. 1897)
- State v. Cnty. of Citrus, 117 Fla. 792 (Fla. 1935)
- Reynolds v. The Fla. Cent. & Peninsula R.R. Co., 42 Fla. 387 (Fla. 1900)
- Mortg. Inv. Found., Inc. v. Eller, 93 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 1957)