Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. Goldstein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. Goldstein

571 So. 2d 490, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7123, 1990 WL 134701

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 13, 1990

DocketNos. 89-2635, 89-2718 and 90-1737

StatusPublished

This text of 571 So. 2d 490 (Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. Goldstein) 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

Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. Goldstein, 571 So. 2d 490, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7123, 1990 WL 134701 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Following reversal of an order appointing a receiver, Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 560 So.2d 1391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), Brickell Station Towers filed an application in the alternative for [491]*491mandamus, prohibition, and common law certiorari which essentially sought to prohibit the lower tribunal from conducting fee hearings for the former receiver and its attorney. This court treated the proceeding as one to compel enforcement of the mandate in the prior proceeding and has now had the benefit of responses by the parties. Because of the decisional law emanating from Deauville Corp. v. Blount, 34 So.2d 537 (Fla.1948), it appears that the within application is patently frivolous because the trial court obviously possessed subject matter jurisdiction to proceed, hear, and determine the request on the merits. The application for prohibition, common law certiorari, or mandamus is therefore denied as is the motion to enforce the mandate.

The application for attorney’s fees filed by JDC (America) Corporation for services rendered in this court is granted and the motion remanded to the trial court to hear and determine in the orderly course of its business. This order is final and forthwith. No motions for rehearing or clarification will be entertained.

It is so ordered.

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

Following reversal of an order appointing a receiver, Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 560 So.2d 1391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), Brickell Station Towers filed an application in the alternative for [491]*491mandamus, prohibition, and common law certiorari which essentially sought to prohibit the lower tribunal from conducting fee hearings for the former receiver and its attorney. This court treated the proceeding as one to compel enforcement of the mandate in the prior proceeding and has now had the benefit of responses by the parties. Because of the decisional law emanating from Deauville Corp. v. Blount, 34 So.2d 537 (Fla.1948), it appears that the within application is patently frivolous because the trial court obviously possessed subject matter jurisdiction to proceed, hear, and determine the request on the merits. The application for prohibition, common law certiorari, or mandamus is therefore denied as is the motion to enforce the mandate.

The application for attorney’s fees filed by JDC (America) Corporation for services rendered in this court is granted and the motion remanded to the trial court to hear and determine in the orderly course of its business. This order is final and forthwith. No motions for rehearing or clarification will be entertained.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

571 So. 2d 490, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 7123, 1990 WL 134701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brickell-station-towers-inc-v-goldstein-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack