Miseveth v. Stafford

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Miseveth v. Stafford

667 So. 2d 1012, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1050, 1996 WL 61372

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 14, 1996

DocketNo. 95-4021

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 667 So. 2d 1012 (Miseveth v. Stafford) 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

Miseveth v. Stafford, 667 So. 2d 1012, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1050, 1996 WL 61372 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This court has jurisdiction over the petition for writ of mandamus, since mandamus is properly used to test the correctness of a trial court’s determination that it has no jurisdiction. Pino v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 604 So.2d 1232, 1233 (Fla.1992). The related appeal of the consolidated cases does not challenge the validity of the underlying settlement agreement or its amendment. Continuing enforcement of the settlement agreement, as amended, is independent and collateral to the subject matter of the appeal. The trial court has jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s motions to enforce the settlement agreement filed on August 11 and October 4 and any motions for stay filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310, Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 651 So.2d 701, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Hemmerle v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 569 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1991).

Petition for writ of mandamus is granted.

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ„ concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This court has jurisdiction over the petition for writ of mandamus, since mandamus is properly used to test the correctness of a trial court’s determination that it has no jurisdiction. Pino v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 604 So.2d 1232, 1233 (Fla.1992). The related appeal of the consolidated cases does not challenge the validity of the underlying settlement agreement or its amendment. Continuing enforcement of the settlement agreement, as amended, is independent and collateral to the subject matter of the appeal. The trial court has jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s motions to enforce the settlement agreement filed on August 11 and October 4 and any motions for stay filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310, Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 651 So.2d 701, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Hemmerle v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 569 So.2d 472, 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), rev. denied, 583 So.2d 1035 (Fla.1991).

Petition for writ of mandamus is granted.

KLEIN, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ„ concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 So. 2d 1012, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 1050, 1996 WL 61372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miseveth-v-stafford-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack