FLORIDA PACE FUNDING AGENCY, A PUBLIC BODY CORPORATE AND POLITIC
v.
WILL ROBERTS, AS VOLUSIA COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR
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.
Mandamus is a discretionary writ awarded in the exercise of sound judicial discretion upon equitable principles, and satisfaction of the threshold elements (clear legal right, indisputable legal duty, and no adequate alternative remedy) establishes necessity but not entitlement to relief as a matter of right.
[1] Mandamus relief is discretionary and awarded in the exercise of sound judicial discretion upon equitable principles, and the satisfaction of mandamus threshold elements—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 intelligence“It is well settled that mandamus is a discretionary writ that is awarded, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion and upon equitable principles.”
State ex rel. Haft v. Adams, 238 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 1970), cited to establish the discretionary nature of mandamus.
Florida PACE Funding Agency appealed a circuit court decision in Volusia County involving a dispute with the Tax Collector, Will Roberts.…
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 Indisputable Legal Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
LAMBERT and HARRIS, JJ., concur. MACIVER, J., concurs specially, with opinion.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________
3
Case No. 5D2023-3366 LT Case No. 2023-32217-CICI MACIVER, J., concurring specially.
I fully concur in the per curiam affirmance of this case. I write separately to briefly address what appears to me to be a point of confusion about the extraordinary aspect of mandamus relief.
In Pleus v. Crist, the Florida Supreme Court observed that “[t]o be entitled to mandamus relief, ‘the petitioner must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, the respondent must have an indisputable legal duty to perform the requested action, and the petitioner must have no other adequate remedy available.’” 14 So. 3d 941, 945 (Fla. 2009) (citing Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 2000)). Reducing that to logical terms, the premise described is A may only happen if B. Such a premise is not the same as if B happens then A happens. In other words, “to be entitled to mandamus” describes necessity, not sufficiency.
The parties in this case seem to misapprehend the above language to mean that if the elements of mandamus are met then one is entitled to mandamus. That is not the case. “It is well settled that mandamus is a discretionary writ that is awarded, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion and upon equitable principles.” State ex rel. Haft v. Adams, 238 So. 2d 843, 844 (Fla. 1970).
To hold otherwise would make mandamus relief available as a matter of right, converting an extraordinary remedy into an ordinary one and violating both binding precedent and the long- settled understanding of the nature of the writ.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Huffman v. State, 813 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 2000)
- Pleus v. Crist, 14 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 2009)
- State v. Honorable Tom Adams, 238 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1970)