TOWN OF PALM BEACH, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. MILTON F. STEINHARDT, 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.
The Town of Palm Beach appealed a peremptory writ of mandamus requiring it to issue a parking lot permit and a subsequent restraining order prohibiting harassment of the developer. The court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a new cause of action via post-judgment motion after its jurisdiction had transferred to the appellate court.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the restraining order motion because: (1) the trial court's jurisdiction terminated upon the final judgment and expiration of the time to alter, modify, or vacate it, except to enforce the judgment; (2) the automatic stay triggered by the Town's appeal under Florida Rule 5.12(1) foreclosed the court's enforcement jurisdiction; and (3) even without the stay, the restraining order constituted new, separate, and independent relief improper as a post-judgment pleading in the mandamus action.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction over a cause of action after the entry of a final judgment and the expiration of the time for altering, modifying, or vacating that judgm…
[2] Filing a notice of appeal by a political subdivision of the state automatically stays the enforcement of a judgment pursuant to Rule 5.12(1) F.A.R.
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“[QUOTE REDACTED — verbatim audit could not classify this quote (LLM classifier failed to produce valid JSON, or wrapper verification failed). Treat as unverified.]”
Establishes the basic principle that trial court jurisdiction terminates with final judgment except for enforcement purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMilton Steinhardt, a condominium developer in Palm Beach, obtained a peremptory writ of mandamus from the trial court on March 7, 1975, requiring the …
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 Peremptory Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Judge.
This is another episode in the continuing difficulties between appellant and appellee. Appellee, a developer constructing a condominium in Palm Beach, filed a petition for writ of mandamus to require appellant, Town of Palm Beach, to issue him a permit to complete the parking lot of his condominium project. The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandamus on March 7, 1975. The Town filed a timely notice of appeal.1
While the appeal was still pending in this court, Mr. Steinhardt filed in the trial court, in the same proceeding, a motion for an order holding the Town of Palm Beach in contempt, alleging that the Town officials were harassing him at his condominium project in an attempt to coerce him into abandoning his rights under the peremptory writ. Mr. Steinhardt subsequently amended this motion to request an order restraining the Town of Palm Beach from engaging in this alleged harassment. Essentially, as appellee concedes in his brief, the amended motion constituted a new, separate and independent cause of action, unrelated to the writ of mandamus theretofore issued. The Town’s objection that the court lacked jurisdiction, because exclusive jurisdiction had been transferred to the appellate court upon the Town’s filing notice of appeal, was overruled. The court took testimony and thereafter entered its restraining order against appellant. Subsequently, the court entered an order taxing certain costs against the Town. Appeal No. 75-1059 seeks review of the restraining order. Appeal No. 75-1266 seeks review of the order taxing costs. These appeals have been consolidated for our consideration. It is our opinion that both orders must be reversed.
When appellee’s mandamus action terminated in the entry of a final judgment by which the writ was issued, and the time allotted in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for altering, modifying or vacating that judgment expired, the trial court’s jurisdiction in the cause also terminated, Shelby Mutual Insurance Company of Shelby, Ohio v. Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970), except for the purpose of enforcing the judgment. Mabson v. Christ, 96 Fla. 756, 119 So. 131 (1928); 19 Fla. Jur., Judgments and Decrees, § 539 (1958).
When appellant filed its notice of appeal, the trial court’s jurisdiction to enforce the judgment was foreclosed by virtue of Rule 5.12(1) F.A.R. which provides for the automatic stay of judgments appealed by the State or any of its political subdivisions. See, City of Miami v. City of Coral Gables, 233 So. 2d 7, 41 ALR3rd 1000 (3rd DCA Fla.1970).
But even if the Town had not undertaken an appeal, automatically invoking Rule 5.12 F.A.R., and the judgment had remained in full force and effect, the court would have lacked jurisdiction to enter the restraining order herein appealed because the object of that order was not the enforcement of the original judgment, i. e., to require the Town to issue the paving permit. Rather, appellee quite clearly was seeking, in the form of a restraining order, new and independent relief which, although a proper subject for a court of equity upon the filing of an appropriate complaint and the issuance and service of process, was not a proper subject for post-judgment pleadings in the mandamus action.
We hold that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, in the mandamus action by post judgment motion, a new, separate and independent cause of action between the parties. The Town’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction should have been granted. The restraining order of May 15, 1975 (No. 75-1059) and the subsequent order taxing costs against appellant (No. 75-1266) are severally reversed and this cause is remanded with directions to dismiss Mr. Steinhardt’s postjudgment mo tion for a restraining order without prejudice to seek such relief in a separate and independent action.
Reversed and remanded.
MAGER, J., and STRAWN, DAVID U., Associate Judge, concur. . Town of Palm Beach v. State of Florida ex rel. Steinhardt, 318 So. 2d 193 (4th DCA Fla.1975), in which this court quashed the peremptory writ.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patin v. Popino, 459 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…4 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). It is well established that a court loses jurisdiction over a case when it enters a final judgment and the time allotted for altering, modifying or vacating the judgment expires, Town of Palm Beach v. State ex rel. Steinhardt, 321 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and that a judgment awarding attorneys’ fees after entry of a final judgment which does not contain a reservation of jurisdiction to award the fees is void. See Frumkes v. Frumkes, 328 So. 2d at 35. Accordingly, we reverse the o…
-
Plca Condo. Ass'n v. Amtrust-Np SFR Venture, LLC, 182 So. 3d 668 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ime allowed by the rules of procedure for altering, modifying, or vacating the judgment has passed, the. trial court loses jurisdiction over the case “except for the purpose of enforcing the judgment.” Town of Palm Beach v. State ex rel. Steinhardt, 321 So. 2d 567, 568 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). A trial court also “retains jurisdiction to the extent such is specifically reserved in the final judgment or to the [*670] extent provided by statute or rule of procedure.” Cent Park A Metrowest Condo. Ass’n v. AmTrust REO…
-
State ex rel. Am. Home Ins. Co. v. Honorable Russell E. Seay, Jr., 355 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)…rel. Faircloth v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 187 So. 2d 890 (Fla.1966), and State v. Florida State Turnpike Authority, 134 So. 2d 12 (Fla.1961), except as to enforcement of the judgment, Town of Palm Beach v. State ex rel. Steinhardt, 321 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), and that too terminates if the judgment is superseded. As the court said in General Capital Corporation v. Tel Service Co., Inc., 212 So. 2d 369, 382 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), modified 227 So. 2d 667 (Fla.1969): “The rule is firmly…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mabson v. Christ, 96 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1928)
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. OF Shelby v. Tillman Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970)
- City OF Miami v. City OF Coral Gables, 233 So. 2d 7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Town OF Palm Beach v. State ex rel. Milton F. Steinhardt, 318 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)