STEVE J. LELEKIS, AND PATRICIA M. LELEKIS, HIS WIFE, RELATORS,
v.
WOODIE A. LILES, AS CHIEF JUDGE; AND WILLIAM P. ALLEN, WILLIAM C. PIERCE, T. FRANK HOBSON, JR., ROBERT T. MANN AND JOSEPH P. MCNULTY, AS JUDGES OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court held that an appellate court has discretion to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction and remand a case to the trial court for reconsideration in the interest of justice, even before hearing the appeal on the merits. The court upheld the District Court of Appeal's authority to remand when a municipal zoning ordinance was amended after the trial court's judgment.
Although jurisdiction vests in an appellate court upon filing of a notice of appeal, the appellate court has discretion in the interest of justice to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings, including reconsideration in light of changed circumstances such as amended ordinances.
[1] An appellate court has the discretion to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court in the interest of justice, even after a notice of appeal has been filed.
[2] An appellate court may remand a case to the trial court for reconsideration when a subsequent amendment to a zoning ordinance clarifies the intent of the original ordinan…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“We hold that although jurisdiction rests in an appellate court upon the filing of a notice of appeal the court has the discretion, in the interest of justice, to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction for certain specified purposes.”
The core holding establishing that appellate courts have discretionary authority to remand cases before hearing the appeal on the merits when justice requires it.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court in Tarpon Springs issued a final judgment prohibiting Steve and Marie Tsavaras from building a house within 25 feet of the rear lot li…
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 Relinquishment Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
A rule nisi in prohibition was entered on suggestion of relators after consideration of the petition, objections and briefs of interested parties and the hearing of oral argument. Further oral argument having been dispensed with, we now proceed to dispose of the matter on the merits.
Final judgment was entered by the Circuit Court prohibiting and enjoining Steve and Marie Tsavaras from continuing to build a dwelling house within twenty-five (25) feet of the rear lot line in a section of platted lots in Tarpon Springs, Florida. It was further ordered that the portion of the house already constructed be removed from the prohibited area. The final judgment was based in part upon the trial court’s interpretation of a municipal ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs relating to zoning and set back lines.
Appeal was taken to the District Court but prior to the hearing the city amended its zoning ordinance so that the area which had previously been designated “rear yard” would be defined as “side yard.” After the case was heard, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, entered an order stating:
“This matter came on to be heard on appellants’ motion for appropriate relief; and it appearing that the final judgment from which the appeal is taken consists, in essence, of a judicial construction of a certain section of a zoning ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs relating to set-back lines restricting the construction of permanent improvements on platted lots; and it further appearing that subsequent to the aforesaid final judgment, and because thereof and with specific reference thereto, the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs amended the aforesaid zoning ordinance so as to expressly clarify the intent thereof; and it further appearing that in view of the foregoing amendment of the zoning ordinance the circuit judge may well wish to reconsider the conclusions reached in the judgment appealed from, but has lost jurisdiction therefor because of this appeal; and it being otherwise in the interest of justice and expediency that the circuit judge have further opportunity to review the substances hereof in the light of existing circumstances, it is thereupon
“ORDERED that jurisdiction of this cause is hereby temporarily relinquished, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings and determination as he may be advised.” (emphasis supplied)
Relators suggest that the appellate court had no jurisdiction to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction before the appeal was heard and that the District Court must proceed with the appeal on the record already made.
We hold that although jurisdiction rests in an appellate court upon the filing of a notice of appeal the court has the discretion, in the interest of justice, to temporarily relinquish jurisdiction for certain specified purposes. Cf. D’Agostino v. Peoples Water and Gas Company (Fla.1955), 78 So.2d 739; ABC Liquors, Inc. v. State (Fla.App.1965), 179 So.2d 256; General Capital Corporation v. Tel Service Co. (Fla.App.1968), 212 So.2d 369.
For the reasons above stated it appears that the respondents acted within the orbit of their jurisdiction so the rule nisi heretofore issued is dissolved and the cause—
Dismissed.
DREW, THORNAL and CARLTON, JJ., concur.
ERVIN, C. J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tsavaras v. Lelekis, 246 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…nation in light of the amendment. Upon suggestion for Writ of Prohibition the Supreme Court held that this Court acted within the orbit of its jurisdiction in temporarily relinquishing jurisdiction for a certain specified purpose, Lelekis v. Liles, 240 So. 2d 478. Pursuant to a motion of the Tsavarases for reconsideration and modification of the final judgment, the lower Court entered its order reaffirming its findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the final judgment, but modified it to the ex…
-
City OF Miami v. Arostegui, 616 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…16, 1992. In support of its argument that this court lost jurisdiction to issue the mandate, the City cites to this court’s opinion in Payne v. State, 493 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) and the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in Lelekis v. Liles, 240 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1970). The City relies on the following statement in Payne: “once the notice was filed jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court and neither this court nor the trial court has jurisdiction to proceed.” Payne, 493 So. 2d at 1105. The City overloo…
-
Payne v. State, 493 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ial court’s jurisdiction, that order is invalid, and appellant’s fear of deprivation of his right to review is unjustified. Jurisdiction of the subject matter of an appeal vests in the reviewing court upon the filing of the notice. Lelekis v. Liles, 240 So. 2d 478 (Fla.1970). The test for determining whether the trial court may proceed is not whether it is proceeding in a matter which is related to the final judgment, but whether it is proceeding in a matter which affects the subject matter on appeal. Bailey…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Gen. Cap. Corp. v. TEL Serv. Co., Inc., 212 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968)
- Eubanks v. State, 179 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- ABC Liquors, Inc. v. State of Fla. on the relation of Frank M. Wolfe, 179 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1965)
- D'Agostino v. Peoples Water & GAS Co., 78 So. 2d 739 (Fla. 1955)