LINDA VICK, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK KENNETH VICK, JR., ET AL., APPELLEE
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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's refusal to vacate a satisfaction of judgment, holding that a clerk cannot satisfy a judgment when undetermined costs, fees, and claims remain pending, and awarded the former wife post-judgment attorney's fees.
A clerk cannot legally satisfy and discharge a judgment under Florida Statutes § 55.141 when undetermined costs, fees, and claims for damages remain pending before the court.
[1] A clerk of court cannot satisfy and discharge a judgment under Florida Statutes § 55.141 when undetermined costs, fees, and claims for damages remain pending before the c…
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 intelligenceLinda Vick appealed orders refusing to vacate a satisfaction of judgment entered by the clerk on December 14, 2007, in favor of her former husband Jac…
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 Satisfaction Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWSON, J.
Linda Vick timely appeals several orders of the trial court refusing her motion to vacate a satisfaction of judgment entered by the clerk of court on December 14, 2007, in favor of her former husband, Jack K. Vick, Jr. The former wife contends that the trial court erred in failing to set aside the satisfaction of judgment because the clerk could not legally satisfy and discharge the judgment pursuant to section 55.141, Florida Statutes (2007), until undetermined costs, fees and claims for damages pending before the lower court and costs reserved on the face of the March 14,
2003 judgment were determined and paid. We agree. See Airlite Processing Corp. of Fla. v. Atlantic Central Corp., 546 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). We also agree that the former wife is entitled to post-judgment attorney’s and receiver’s fees and costs until the judgment is fully satisfied. Id. at 1151; § 57.115, Fla. Stat. (2007); § 57.041, Fla. Stat. (2007); § 59.46, Fla. Stat. (2007). Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court set aside the satisfaction of judgment. We also grant the former wife’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs for this appeal, and direct the trial court, on remand, to determine the appropriate amount of appellate attorneys’ fees and costs.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. '
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Airlite Processing Corp. of Fla. v. Atl. Cent. Corp., 546 So. 2d 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)