GEORGE J. SULLIVAN, AS ADMINISTRATOR C.T.A OF THE ESTATE OF MARY E. SUTTON SULLIVAN, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
CHASE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND SELENA M. POSTER, APPELLEES
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 District Court of Appeal entered a final judgment on remand, directing Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association to pay a joint account to the administrator of Mary E. Sutton Sullivan's estate, after the trial court refused to comply with the appellate court's mandate affirming the administrator's ownership of the account.
The appellate court held that the trial court must comply with the appellate mandate and entered the judgment itself, ordering Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association to pay the joint account proceeds and accumulated earnings to the administrator of the estate.
“We are not persuaded that the chancellor has refused to follow or will not readily comply with the mandate of this court, as the same has been clarified herein”
The court's initial clarification of its mandate in its March 16, 1961 order, expressing confidence the trial judge would comply
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary E. Sutton Sullivan, deceased, held a joint account at Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association in her name and Selena M. Poster's name. George …
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 Mandate Of Appellate Court cases and more on FLexlaw
The opinion in this cause was filed on March 10, 1960, 119 So.2d 78. Thereafter, upon appellees’ petition to the Supreme Court of Florida for a writ of certiorari the opinion was considered by the Supreme Court and the writ discharged with an opinion filed November 23, 1960, 127 So.2d 112. Thereafter, upon petition for constitutional writ in aid of jurisdiction or, in the alternative, for the entry of a decree in accordance with the mandate, we granted the constitutional writ but denied the petition for decree in accordance with the mandate on March 16, 1961, as will appear in the report in 132 So.2d 341, in which, by clarification of our earlier opinion we designated the order to be made under the mandate,, saying: “We are not persuaded that the-chancellor has refused to follow or will not readily comply with the mandate of this court, as the same has been clarified herein; and for that reason, the petition for this court to enter such decree as should have been given by the trial court under section 59.34, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., or otherwise-as authorized under section 35.08, Fla.Stat.,. F.S.A., is denied without prejudice.”
This cause is again before us upon a petition for a decree in accordance with the-mandate, from which petition it appears-that on a subsequent application of appellant for an order in accordance with the-mandate, the trial judge refused to enter said order. In view of the disagreement of the trial judge with the correctness of the former opinion of this court and the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, and the trial court’s reluctance, if not actual refusal, to carry out the mandate of this court, as clarified and defined in this-court’s order of March 16, 1961, we have concluded to exercise our power under section 59.34, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., and enter the-judgment which the lower court should have entered. See Wright v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla. 1958, 100 So.2d 403, 406.
Accordingly it is
Ordered that the order denying plaintiff’s motion for an order on the mandate- and postponing consideration of the cause is quashed.
It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that George J. Sullivan, as administrator of the Estate of Mary E. Sutton Sullivan, deceased, is the owner of the-joint account in the name of Mary E. Sutton and Selena M. Poster, in the Chase-Federal Savings and Loan Association, a Florida corporation. The defendant, Chase-Federal Savings and Loan Association, a Florida corporation, is hereby ordered to-pay the proceeds of said account, together with accumulated earnings thereon, to-*345George J. Sullivan, as administrator C.T.A. of the estate of Mary E. Sutton Sullivan, deceased.
This court retains jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of making such other and further orders as may be necessary or proper to carry into effect the mandate in this cause and for the enforcement hereof.
It is so ordered.
HORTON, C. J., and PEARSON, TILLMAN, and CARROLL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Power Corp. v. Griffin, 150 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…e where the trial court misconceived the intent of the mandate and failed, after ample opportunity, to carry out the mandate of this court, as was the case in Sullivan v. Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So. 2d 341, and 132 So. 2d 343. The decision of this court affirming the final judgment did not in any way deal with the question, now raised, of payment of interest on the judgment from the time of its entry, and therefore, our decision and mandate in no way involved that issue…
-
Zelman v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 645 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…Fla. 282, 34 So. 2d 434 (1948); Milward v. Milward, 152 Fla. 15, 10 So. 2d 663 (1942). Although we are empowered to render an actual judgment to this effect, see Posner v. Posner, 257 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1972); Sullivan v. Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 132 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961); In re Vermeulen, 122 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960), we assume that at least that step will not be required. Certiorari granted. . Garcia v. State, 564 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 1990). . RULE 4-1.5 FEES FOR LEGAL SERVICES (b) Factors…
-
Lang v. Selma Lang, 293 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…litigation, we have determined to enter the order on mandate which the circuit court should have entered. See Wright v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla.1957, 100 So. 2d 403, 406; Sullivan v. Chase Federal Savings and Loan Association, Fla.App.1961, 132 So. 2d 343. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the order of the trial court entitled “Post Appeal Order” and dated January 25, 1974 is quashed. It is further ordered 1. The respondent-wife was entitled to lump sum payment on May 9, 1972 of $255,000.00. She is…
Authorities Cited
- Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. George J. Sullivan C.T.A. of the Estate of Mary E. Sutton Sullivan, 127 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1960)
- George J. Sullivan C.T.A. of the Estate of Mary E. Sutton Sullivan v. Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 119 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Wright v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction FOR the Cnty. OF Sumter, 100 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1957)
- Kovens v. Bluestone, 132 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- George J. Sullivan C.T.A. of the Estate of Mary E. Sutton Sullivan v. Chase Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 132 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)