Janovitz v. Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Janovitz v. Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit

613 So. 2d 527, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 601, 1993 WL 15627

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 26, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2447

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 613 So. 2d 527 (Janovitz v. Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit) 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

Janovitz v. Judges of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, 613 So. 2d 527, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 601, 1993 WL 15627 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Pamela Janovitz, who was an unsuccessful appellant in the circuit court below, in which it is urged that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter an adverse order assessing appellate attorney’s fees. We grant the petition for a writ of mandamus because, simply stated, the order was entered fifty-four days after the circuit court had issued its appellate mandate affirming the county court judgment under review without the court ever having recalled the mandate to enter such order— and, accordingly, (1) the circuit court had no jurisdiction to enter the subject attorney’s fee order, and (2) mandamus lies to require the circuit court to vacate this order. The fact that the attorney’s fee order was entered in the same term of court as the appellate mandate cannot change this result. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges of the Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Fifth Dist., 405 So.2d 980, 982 (Fla.1981); Dyer v. City of Miami Employee’s Retirement Bd., 512 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

The petition for a writ of mandamus is hereby granted, but we withhold issuance of a writ of mandamus on the assumption that the circuit court will vacate the attorney’s fee order upon receipt of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Pamela Janovitz, who was an unsuccessful appellant in the circuit court below, in which it is urged that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to enter an adverse order assessing appellate attorney’s fees. We grant the petition for a writ of mandamus because, simply stated, the order was entered fifty-four days after the circuit court had issued its appellate mandate affirming the county court judgment under review without the court ever having recalled the mandate to enter such order— and, accordingly, (1) the circuit court had no jurisdiction to enter the subject attorney’s fee order, and (2) mandamus lies to require the circuit court to vacate this order. The fact that the attorney’s fee order was entered in the same term of court as the appellate mandate cannot change this result. See, e.g., State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges of the Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Fifth Dist., 405 So.2d 980, 982 (Fla.1981); Dyer v. City of Miami Employee’s Retirement Bd., 512 So.2d 338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

The petition for a writ of mandamus is hereby granted, but we withhold issuance of a writ of mandamus on the assumption that the circuit court will vacate the attorney’s fee order upon receipt of this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 527, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 601, 1993 WL 15627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janovitz-v-judges-of-the-eleventh-judicial-circuit-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack