ARTHUR L. GANN D/B/A A. L. GANN PLUMBING, HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, APPELLANT,
v.
LEVITT & SONS OF FLORIDA, INC., 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.
A contractor sued a developer for breach of contract and recovered $14,500 in damages despite the trial court finding the contractor breached. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed the damage award but reversed the trial court's stay of execution conditioned on satisfaction of two supplier liens, finding the trial court improperly took judicial notice of a settlement in a separate case.
The trial court properly stayed execution under Florida law authorizing stays for good cause and to accomplish justice, but erred in conditioning the stay on satisfaction of the Beautyware lien because it improperly took judicial notice of a settlement in a separate case. The judgment must be modified to strike the requirement that Beautyware's lien be satisfied before execution.
“The rule is that a trial court is not authorized to take judicial notice of the records in a different case pending or disposed of in the same court but outside the record of the case before that court.”
Establishes the principle that led to reversal of the portion of the judgment requiring Beautyware's lien satisfaction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur Gann, a plumbing contractor, contracted with Levitt & Sons to perform plumbing work on a subdivision. The trial court found Gann breached the c…
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 Stay Of Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
Both the plaintiff, Arthur L. Gann d/b/a A. L. Gann Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, and defendant, Levitt & Sons of Florida, Inc., appeal from a final judgment entered by the trial court in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant to recover damages for breach of contract. The trial court found that plaintiff breached the contract but allowed damages for work done by plaintiff under the contract. The court awarded plaintiff $14,500 as damages but stayed execution until two claims of lien, one by Silver Springs Plumbing & Heating Supply, Inc. and the other by Beautyware Plumbing Supply Co., Inc., were satisfied of record.
We have considered the issues raised on appeal by both the appellant, Gann, and the cross-appellant, Levitt & Sons, and find no reversible error as to the judgment rendered in favor of plaintiff.
On the question of the stay of execution plaintiff urges that the trial court has erroneously withheld execution of the final judgment.
*201Florida Statutes Annotated § 55.38 authorizes the court before which an execution is returnable, on a motion and notice to the adverse party for good cause and upon such terms as the court may impose, to direct a stay of the same and the suspension of proceedings thereon. This section has been held to authorize a trial court to stay the issuance of execution before the actual issuance of execution. Dade County v. Brigham, Fla.1949, 40 So.2d 835. The object of F.S.A. § 55.38 is to expressly authorize courts to correct, restrain and control their own proceedings. City of Coral Gables v. Hepkins, 1932, 107 Fla. 778, 144 So. 385. It has also been held that courts have the power to stay execution of judgments whenever it is necessary to accomplish the ends of justice. City of Sarasota v. State ex rel. Evans, 1937, 127 Fla. 126, 172 So. 728.
The final judgment recites that the case of Beautyware Plumbing Supply Company, Inc. v. Arthur L. Gann, d/b/a A. L. Gann Plumbing, Heating and Air Conditioning was settled in the presence of the trial judge, who is the same judge that entered the judgment subject to appeal in this case. Said final judgment further recited that such settlement involved a claim for plumbing supplies sold plaintiff by Beautyware for incorporation by plaintiff in the subdivision of defendant, Levitt & Sons of Florida, Inc., that a claim of lien had previously been filed by Beautyware on the subdivision and one of the considerations of the stipulation between Gann and Beauty-ware is that upon the payment of $9,000 the claim of lien will be satisfied. However, the record does not disclose that the claim of Beautyware became a part of the trial record in this case.
The record of the claim of Silver Springs Plumbing & Heating Supply, Inc. is a part of the record in this case.
The rule is that a trial court is not authorized to take judicial notice of the records in a different case pending or disposed of in the same court but outside the record of the case before that court. Kostecos v. Johnson, Fla.1956, 85 So.2d 594. Therefore, the trial court committed error in taking judicial notice of the settlement between Beautyware Plumbing Supply Co., Inc. and plaintiff where that proceeding was not a part of the record of the instant case nor incorporated as part of the record.
Accordingly, judgment must be modified by striking the requirement that the lien of Beautyware be satisfied before execution may issue.
Affirmed, in part; reversed, in part.
LILES, WOODIE A., and NANCE, L. CLAYTON, Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blimpie Cap. Venture, Inc. v. Palms Plaza P'rs, Ltd., 636 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…udgment ought not to be further executed or enforced, or if execution be proper to be enforced, yet there is good reason why it should be postponed. 107 Fla. at 789, 144 So. at 388 (emphasis added).- See also Gann v. Levitt & Sons of Florida, Inc., 193 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966) (citing Hepkins for the proposition that “[t]he object of F.S.A. § 55.38 is to expressly authorize courts to correct, restrain and control their own proceedings.”) Additionally, a trial court’s order on a motion to stay exec…
-
Novack v. Novack, 196 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…peal unless they were appropriately introduced in evidence either in the original or by certified copy and then included in the record sent to this court for consideration.” * * % tfi * * See also Gann v. Levitt & Sons of Fla., Inc., Fla.App.1966, 193 So. 2d 200. We therefore hold that the wife did not meet the requirement that she establish her needs by evidence in the record in this cause. Appellant’s next point is directed to the fact that at the time the order granting temporary allowances was entered…
-
Excel Ins. Co. v. Brown, 406 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…445 (1946). . Inverness Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. McDaniel, 78 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1955); Sheffield Steel Products, Inc. v. Powell Brothers, Inc., 385 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1980). . Gann v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 193 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); City of Coral Gables v. Brasher, 132 So. 2d 442 (Fla.3d DCA 1961).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- City of Coral Gables v. Hepkins, 107 Fla. 778 (Fla. 1932)
- Kostecos v. Johnson, 85 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 1956)
- City of Sarasota v. State, 127 Fla. 126 (Fla. 1937)