CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HAROLD STERIN, FOR HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND MONTMARTRE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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 City of Miami Beach appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to recover tax funds deposited into the court registry by the Montmartre Hotel after final judgment. The appellate court reversed, holding that the hotel had no right to deposit funds that belonged to the city and were not subject to conflicting claims, and that the trial court retained jurisdiction to order disbursement of such funds despite the pending appeal.
The trial court retained jurisdiction to order disbursement of the post-judgment deposits to the City of Miami Beach despite the pending appeal. The hotel had no right to deposit funds into the court registry that belonged to the city and were not the subject of conflicting claims. Once the money was accepted by the court, it became subject to the court's order, and the trial judge should have ordered payment to the city.
“Since a party granted relief pursuant to a bill of interpleader has the duty to deposit into the registry of the court those funds it possesses which are the subject of conflicting claims, it follows that the party has neither the duty nor the right to deposit into the court registry funds it possesses which do not belong to it and which are not the subject of conflicting claims.”
Establishes the principle that interpleader deposit rights are limited to funds subject to conflicting claims, not funds belonging to third parties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Montmartre Hotel, a defendant, had been granted permission to deposit tax money it collected under a City of Miami Beach ordinance into the court …
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 Disbursement Of Funds cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is from a post-judgment order which denied a motion by the City of Miami Beach, defendant below, to disburse funds deposited in the registry of the circuit court by the Montmartre Hotel after the entry of final judgment in this cause.
The hotel had received permission of the court to deposit into the registry of the court during the pendency of the cause tax money it had collected in accordance with a City of Miami Beach ordinance. After the entry of final judgment, the hotel continued to make tax money deposits into the trial court registry, despite the fact that the deposits were the property of the City of Miami Beach, The trial judge denied the city’s motion apparently upon the basis that, an appeal having been taken, he no longer had jurisdiction to make any order in the cause.
Under the circumstances outlined, the Montmartre Hotel had no right to deposit funds in the registry of the court after the entry of final judgment, and the clerk accepted the money mistakenly. Since a party granted relief pursuant to a bill of interpleader has the duty to deposit into the registry of the court those funds it possesses which are the subject of conflicting claims, it follows that the party has neither the duty nor the right to deposit into the court registry funds it possesses which do not belong to it and which are not the subject of conflicting claims. See Florida East Coast Ry. Co. v. Eno, 99 Fla. 887, 128 So. 622, 625, 70 A.L.R. 506 (1930). Nevertheless, once the money was accepted for deposit in the registry of the court, it became subject to the order of the court. The trial judge should have ordered the post-final judgment deposits of tax money to be paid to the City of Miami Beach. The trial judge’s right to order such payment was in no way affected by the city’s appeal from the final judgment. This is true because the money was not deposited by the hotel pursuant to the final judgment or any right thereunder. See Crichlow v. Maryland Casualty Co., 116 Fla. 226, 156 So. 440, 443, 159 So. 899 (1934).
We therefore reverse the interlocutory order denying the city’s motion with directions to the trial court to grant the motion and to enter an order directing the clerk to pay to the City of Miami Beach all money deposited after the date of entry of the final judgment.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Miami Beach v. Sterin, 214 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)
-
Sterin v. City OF Miami (2 cases), 225 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. So. 2d 358, 214 So. 2d 360. 214…
Authorities Cited
- Fla. E. Coast Ry. Co. v. Eno, 99 Fla. 887 (Fla. 1930)
- Crichlow v. Md. Cas. Co., 116 Fla. 226 (Fla. 1933)
- City OF Miami Beach v. Sterin, 214 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)