Parsons v. Whitaker Plumbing of Boca Raton

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Parsons v. Whitaker Plumbing of Boca Raton

730 So. 2d 839, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4707, 1999 WL 212822

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1999

DocketNo. 99-0718

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 730 So. 2d 839 (Parsons v. Whitaker Plumbing of Boca Raton) 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

Parsons v. Whitaker Plumbing of Boca Raton, 730 So. 2d 839, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4707, 1999 WL 212822 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. We write however to reiterate the general rule that once an appeal has been filed to review a final order/judgment, the lower court is divested of jurisdiction to enter an order affecting the subject matter of the appeal. Thompson v. Stewart, 569 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We recognize that in some cases an amendment to the final judgment or a subsequent fee judgment will not disturb the subject matter of the appeal. If questionable and upon request this court can relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to permit it to amend a judgment, if appropriate. See, e.g., Maynard v. Maynard, 515 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

The above does not alter the well settled principle that absent a stay or bond, the filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to enforce a final order. FMS Management Sys. Inc. v. IDS Mortgage Corp., 402 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. We write however to reiterate the general rule that once an appeal has been filed to review a final order/judgment, the lower court is divested of jurisdiction to enter an order affecting the subject matter of the appeal. Thompson v. Stewart, 569 So.2d 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). We recognize that in some cases an amendment to the final judgment or a subsequent fee judgment will not disturb the subject matter of the appeal. If questionable and upon request this court can relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to permit it to amend a judgment, if appropriate. See, e.g., Maynard v. Maynard, 515 So.2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

The above does not alter the well settled principle that absent a stay or bond, the filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to enforce a final order. FMS Management Sys. Inc. v. IDS Mortgage Corp., 402 So.2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

DELL, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

730 So. 2d 839, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4707, 1999 WL 212822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parsons-v-whitaker-plumbing-of-boca-raton-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack