Holderman v. Lobrano

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Holderman v. Lobrano

617 So. 2d 874, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5465, 1993 WL 158772

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 17, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2171

StatusPublished

This text of 617 So. 2d 874 (Holderman v. Lobrano) 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

Holderman v. Lobrano, 617 So. 2d 874, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5465, 1993 WL 158772 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

We treat this appeal as a petition for review by certiorari.

Upon consideration of the briefs and appendices filed by the parties, we find that the trial court erred in two respects. The trial court made no finding that the petitioner had the ability to produce any additional documents and, thereby, to comply with the trial court’s earlier order. See e.g., Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So.2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Lubin v. Schumer, 593 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); and Grapin & Chaykin, M.D., P.A. v. Turnoff & Fox, M.D., P.A., 413 So.2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The trial court further erred in ordering payment of $300 in previously ordered attorney fees. The record discloses that the previously ordered amount was $180.

[875]*875The petition is GRANTED and the order of May 21,1992 is QUASHED. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

We treat this appeal as a petition for review by certiorari.

Upon consideration of the briefs and appendices filed by the parties, we find that the trial court erred in two respects. The trial court made no finding that the petitioner had the ability to produce any additional documents and, thereby, to comply with the trial court’s earlier order. See e.g., Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So.2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Lubin v. Schumer, 593 So.2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); and Grapin & Chaykin, M.D., P.A. v. Turnoff & Fox, M.D., P.A., 413 So.2d 133 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). The trial court further erred in ordering payment of $300 in previously ordered attorney fees. The record discloses that the previously ordered amount was $180.

[875]*875The petition is GRANTED and the order of May 21,1992 is QUASHED. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 So. 2d 874, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 5465, 1993 WL 158772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holderman-v-lobrano-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack