S. MORGAN SLAUGHTER, CLERK OF COUNTY COURT, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN M. MAREES ET AL., ETC., APPELLEES

Fla. 1st DCA | 1975-09-23
No. X-403
McCord, Acting C.J., Mills, J., Smith, J.
319 So. 2d 580 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (1975)

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.

Synopsis

Appeal dismissed as moot because a statute enacted after the declaratory judgment was entered now permits installment payment of criminal fines, eliminating the need for judicial resolution of whether judges have inherent authority to require such payments.


Holding

The appeal is dismissed as moot because § 775.083(2), F.S. became effective permitting installment payment of fines, rendering the declaratory judgment controversy no longer justiciable.


Facts & Procedural History

County court judges sought a declaratory judgment determining they had inherent authority to require or permit installment payment of criminal fines a…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered pursuant to Chapter 86, F.S.1973, determining that the appellee county court judges have inherent authority to require or permit the installment payment of fines assessed in criminal cases and to require the clerk to accept payments made in that fashion. Since entry of the final judgment, § 775.083(2), F.S.1973 (1974 Supp.), became effective to permit payment of a fine in installments when the convicted defendant cannot otherwise pay. The appeal is therefore moot. See Pearson v. Conley, 158 So. 2d 797 (Fla.App. 3rd, 1963) and Northeast Polk County Hospital Dist. v. Snively, 162 So. 2d 657 (Fla.1964).

Because of the necessity to dismiss this appeal, we do not reach the substantial question of whether, in the absence of a direct order by one of the appellee county court judges to the appellant clerk to receive fines paid in installments, there was a justiciable controversy which might appropriately have been resolved by a declaratory judgment pursuant to Chapter 86, F. S. Neither do we regard it appropriate to retain jurisdiction of this appeal to consider and decide the more general question of whether judges have inherent power to order clerks to perform ministerial tasks which are neither prohibited nor compelled, by law, and to enforce compliance by con tempt proceedings. The judgment below is not precedent for such a decision, and we will not anticipate such a controversy. The appeal is

Dismissed.

McCORD, Acting C. J., and MILLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw