Barnett v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Barnett v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A.

338 So. 2d 888, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15774

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 27, 1976

DocketNo. CC-432

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 338 So. 2d 888 (Barnett v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barnett v. Barnett Bank of Jacksonville, N.A., 338 So. 2d 888, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15774 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO REVIEW STAY ORDER

SMITH, Judge.

The trial court entered a money judgment for appellee but granted appellants’ motion pursuant to Rule 1.550(b), R.C.P., to stay execution “for good cause” during the appeal. The court recited that the central issue is without controlling Florida precedent, that the issue “is of sufficient importance that it should be finally determined by the Appellate Court” and consequently that there is good cause to stay execution pending the appeal. The trial court enjoined appellants from disposing of their property. The main appeal to this court is pending at an early stage.

The appellee judgment creditor seeks review of the trial court’s stay order under Rule 5.10, F.A.R. We believe appellee’s [889]*889position is correct. It is true that Rule 1.550(b), R.C.P., may be utilized to protect a judgment debtor briefly while he perfects his appeal and obtains supersedeas. Chapman v. Rose, 295 So.2d 667 (Fla.App. 2d, 1974). But Rule 5.2, F.A.R., provides for supersedeas of a judgment for the recovery of money not secured only by filing a super-sedeas bond conditioned as required by Rule 5.7. Even in a case such as this, in which the trial court obviously considered the central issue fairly debatable, the Rules of Civil Procedure should not be given effect to nullify the benefits to appellee of a su-persedeas bond required by the Florida Appellate Rules. Jenkins Trucking, Inc. v. Emmons, 207 So.2d 280 (Fla.App. 3d, 1968), cert. den., 210 So.2d 867 (Fla.1968).

The order staying execution is vacated.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION TO REVIEW STAY ORDER

SMITH, Judge.

The trial court entered a money judgment for appellee but granted appellants’ motion pursuant to Rule 1.550(b), R.C.P., to stay execution “for good cause” during the appeal. The court recited that the central issue is without controlling Florida precedent, that the issue “is of sufficient importance that it should be finally determined by the Appellate Court” and consequently that there is good cause to stay execution pending the appeal. The trial court enjoined appellants from disposing of their property. The main appeal to this court is pending at an early stage.

The appellee judgment creditor seeks review of the trial court’s stay order under Rule 5.10, F.A.R. We believe appellee’s [889]*889position is correct. It is true that Rule 1.550(b), R.C.P., may be utilized to protect a judgment debtor briefly while he perfects his appeal and obtains supersedeas. Chapman v. Rose, 295 So.2d 667 (Fla.App. 2d, 1974). But Rule 5.2, F.A.R., provides for supersedeas of a judgment for the recovery of money not secured only by filing a super-sedeas bond conditioned as required by Rule 5.7. Even in a case such as this, in which the trial court obviously considered the central issue fairly debatable, the Rules of Civil Procedure should not be given effect to nullify the benefits to appellee of a su-persedeas bond required by the Florida Appellate Rules. Jenkins Trucking, Inc. v. Emmons, 207 So.2d 280 (Fla.App. 3d, 1968), cert. den., 210 So.2d 867 (Fla.1968).

The order staying execution is vacated.

BOYER, C. J., and MILLS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

338 So. 2d 888, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 15774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barnett-v-barnett-bank-of-jacksonville-na-fladistctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack