Harmon v. Germain

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harmon v. Germain

487 So. 2d 71, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 887, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7318

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1561

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 487 So. 2d 71 (Harmon v. Germain) 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

Harmon v. Germain, 487 So. 2d 71, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 887, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7318 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Fritz Germain thought he saw a gold bracelet which had been stolen from him on [72]*72the wrist of Clinton Harmon. City of Miami police officers seized the item, but could not determine who owned it. The city therefore filed an interpleader action in which Germain and Harmon’s mother, Maria Attical, each claimed the bracelet. After a non-jury trial, the trial judge found that “[t]he testimony from all parties is contradictory and can not be reconciled,” and thereupon ordered that the bracelet be sold and its proceeds evenly divided. We vacate this order as a totally and self-evidently inappropriate exercise of judicial authority. Perhaps unfortunately, only the parties may settle cases; judges must decide them.¹ The cause is remanded for the trial court to perform its required function of determining whether the bracelet belongs to Germain or Attical, and to enter judgment accordingly.² See Flagship National Bank v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Vacated, remanded.

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

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

Fritz Germain thought he saw a gold bracelet which had been stolen from him on [72]*72the wrist of Clinton Harmon. City of Miami police officers seized the item, but could not determine who owned it. The city therefore filed an interpleader action in which Germain and Harmon’s mother, Maria Attical, each claimed the bracelet. After a non-jury trial, the trial judge found that “[t]he testimony from all parties is contradictory and can not be reconciled,” and thereupon ordered that the bracelet be sold and its proceeds evenly divided. We vacate this order as a totally and self-evidently inappropriate exercise of judicial authority. Perhaps unfortunately, only the parties may settle cases; judges must decide them.¹ The cause is remanded for the trial court to perform its required function of determining whether the bracelet belongs to Germain or Attical, and to enter judgment accordingly.² See Flagship National Bank v. Testa, 429 So.2d 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).

Vacated, remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

487 So. 2d 71, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 887, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harmon-v-germain-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack