CHESTER A. FORT, JR., PETITIONER,
v.
ANNE BURTON FORT, 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.
In this procedural decision, the Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed a petition for writ of certiorari brought by a divorced husband seeking to reduce alimony payments. The court held that newly adopted Florida appellate rules superseded the prior certiorari statute and provided an adequate alternative remedy through appeal, making certiorari an improper vehicle for review.
The court held that certiorari is not a proper remedy for reviewing post-final decree orders because the new Florida appellate rules adopted in 1957 provide an adequate alternative procedure for such review, and certiorari is available only when no other full, adequate, and complete remedy exists.
“Furthermore, there being an adequate remedy by appeal provided within the rules, a party seeking review of an order such as that presented here cannot avail himself of this court's certiorari powers under Article V, § 5(3), of the Florida Constitution. This is so for the reason that the constitutional or common law writ properly lies only in those cases in which it clearly appears there is no other full, adequate and complete remedy available to the petitioner.”
Establishes the core principle that certiorari is not available when adequate alternative appellate remedies exist
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChester Fort, Jr. sought to reduce alimony payments in a post-divorce decree modification proceeding, arguing that evidence demonstrated his former wi…
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 Adequate Remedy At Law cases and more on FLexlaw
This cause comes before us on petition for writ of certiorari to review an order entered after final decree in a divorce proceeding and pursuant to a motion by defendant-petitioner seeking reduction of alimony. Petitioner here contends error in that the testimony and evidence adduced clearly demonstrate that plaintiff-respondent has no further need for alimony, and that his physical condition and earning capacity are shown to be such that he is unable to make alimony payments in the amount required by the court’s decree as subsequently modified.
We are immediately faced with a question as to the propriety of petitioner’s use of cer-tiorari to obtain review of a Chancellor’s post final decree order. It is contended that this right exists by virtue of F.S. § 59.02(3), F.S.A., which provides for review of interlocutory orders and decrees in equity by proceedings in the nature of certiorari.
Section 3 of Article V of the Florida Constitution, as amended in 1956, F.S.A., provides that the practice and procedure in all the courts of this State shall be governed by rules adopted by the Supreme Court. Pursuant to this authority our Supreme Court, by order entered June 18, 1957, adopted rules governing appellate review of orders, judgments and decrees entered by trial courts, and administrative boards and agencies, effective July 1, 1957. *7031 F.S.A. Rule 1.4, F.A.R., provides that all statutes not superseded thereby or in conflict therewith shall remain in effect as rules promulgated by the Court. Rule 4.2, subd. a, F.A.R., provides for: “Appeals from interlocutory orders or decrees in equity orders or decrees entered after final decree, and orders at common law relating to venue or jurisdiction over the person * * * » q-jjg remaining provisions of Rule 4.2, F.A.R., set forth the mechanics by which review of such orders may be obtained. Giving force and effect to the constitutional mandate hereinabove set forth and the rules promulgated thereunder it becomes clear that orders of the type now under consideration can no longer be reviewed by certiorari under § 59.02(3), F.S. The statute, being in conflict with the rules, must be considered superseded. Furthermore, there being an adequate remedy by appeal provided within the rules, a party seeking review of an order such as that presented here cannot avail himself of this court’s cer-tiorari powers under Article V, § 5(3), of the Florida Constitution. This is so for the reason that the constitutional or common law writ properly lies only in those cases in which it clearly appears there is no other full, adequate and complete remedy available to the petitioner.1
Lastly, we are urged to treat the petition here as an interlocutory appeal under F.S. § 59.45, F.S.A., which provides that an appeal improvidently taken may be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. It must be noted that the statute does not authorize the reverse; that is, we are not authorized to treat an improvident petition for writ of certiorari as an appeal. Therefore, notwithstanding this court’s disposition to base its decision on the merits whenever possible, rather than on matters of procedure, we must hold that in the instant case a lack of jurisdiction prevents us from doing so.2
For the foregoing reasons the petition herein must be and the same is hereby dismissed.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, K, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, 121 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1960)…are those in which the trial court has acted without and in excess of its jurisdiction, or its order does not conform to the essential requirements of law. United Life Insurance Company v. Jowers, Fla.App.1960, 118 So. 2d 85. Fort v. Fort, Fla.1958, 104 So. 2d 69; Kroier v. Kroier, 95 Fla. 865, 116 So. 753; See a discussion of this matter in 3 Florida Law and Practice, Certiorari, Sect. 35 (1956) ; Atlantic Coast Line R; Co. v. Lake County Citrus Sales, Fla. 1950, 48 So. 2d 922. Amended Article Y of the Cons…
-
Taylor v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Duval Cnty., 131 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)…. CARROLL, DONALD, J., and FUS-SELL, CARROLL W., Associate Judge, concur. . Rule 4.2, subd. a, F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. . Board Of Com’rs Of State Institutions v. Tallahassee Bank & Trust Co., Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 411. . Fort v. Fort, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 69; Pullman Company v. Fleishel, Fla.App.1958, 101 So. 2d 188. . Brooks v. Owens, Fla.1957, 97 So. 2d 693. . Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, Fla.App. 1957, 101 So. 2d 408. . State Road Department v. Shell, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 215. . Rich v. Harpe…
-
Mapoles v. Wilson, 122 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960)…ambia County against the defendant-petitioners, who are admittedly residents of and own and operate a radio station that is located in Santa Rosa County, from which the alleged defamatory statements were broadcast. As in Fort v. Fort, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 69, we are immediately confronted with the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to review by certiorari the interlocutory order under assault. In the Fort case we adhered to the fundamental rule that the common-law writ of certiorari lies on…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Pullman Co. v. Fleishel, 101 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Codomo v. Shaw, 99 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1958)
- Fort v. Anne Burton Fort, 90 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1956)
- Bartow Growers Processing Corp. v. Fla. Growers Processing Coop., 71 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 1954)
- Jones v. Johnson, 98 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)