JOHN W. SCHMITZ, ET AL.
v.
DOROTHY JOAN SCHMITZ, ETC., ET AL.
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.
A trial court complies with an appellate mandate when it follows the explicit requirements of that mandate, even if the mandate does not explicitly order a new trial.
[1] A trial court complies with an appellate mandate by following its explicit requirements, and a trial court's role upon issuance of an appellate mandate is purely minister…
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 intelligence“A trial court's role upon the issuance of a mandate from an appellate court becomes purely ministerial, and its function is limited to obeying the appellate court's order or decree.”
Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), cited for the principle that trial courts cannot alter or modify appellate mandates.
Appellants John W. Schmitz and Lucila Schmitz appealed, arguing the trial court violated the appellate court's prior mandate in Schmitz v. Schmitz, 40…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed August 19, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1457 Lower Tribunal No. 18-931-CA-01
John W. Schmitz and Lucila Schmitz, Appellants,
vs.
Dorothy Joan Schmitz and Nancy G. Cook, Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.
Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula, and William D. Mueller, for appellants.
Mombach, Boyle, Hardin & Simmons, P.A., and Michael P. Hamaway, and Seth Andrew Kupilik (Fort Lauderdale); Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., and Bruce S. Rogow (Cedar Mountain, NC); Bruce S. Rogow, P.A., and Tara A. Campion (Boca Raton), for appellees.
Before GORDO, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants John W. Schmitz and Lucila Schmitz argue that the trial court did not comply with our mandate in Schmitz v. Schmitz, 401 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), when it did not conduct a new trial. But a careful reading of our prior decision and mandate reveals we did not explicitly require the trial court to conduct a new trial. And so, the trial court did not violate our mandate. See Berger v. Leposky, 103 So. 2d 628, 631 (Fla. 1958) (“The law is clear that the judgment of an appellate court in a case of that nature is a final judgment in the cause and compliance therewith by the lower court is a purely ministerial act, even to the extent that consent of the appellate court is thereafter required to permit presentation of new matter affecting the cause."); Corkidi v. Franco Invs., LLC, 201 So. 3d 52, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ("A trial court has the latitude to comply with an appellate court's implicit rather than explicit suggestions in the opinion.”); Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A trial court's role upon the issuance of a mandate from an appellate court becomes purely ministerial, and its function is limited to obeying the appellate court's order or decree. A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form.") (citations omitted).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Berger v. Leposky, 103 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 1958)
- Schmitz v. Schmitz, 401 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Torres v. Hon. Rosemary Usher Jones, 652 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)