Ring v. Lizzo

578 So. 2d 24, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3074, 1991 WL 50147
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedApril 10, 1991
DocketNo. 90-3271
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 578 So. 2d 24 (Ring v. Lizzo) 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
Ring v. Lizzo, 578 So. 2d 24, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3074, 1991 WL 50147 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of the trial court’s denial of their motion to set aside satisfaction of judgment. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Hours before the scheduled sale of appel-lee’s property, he paid appellant’s judgment against him and the sheriff issued a receipt marked “Payment of Judgment (Full).” However, the record indicates that a satisfaction of judgment was never obtained and therefore, appellants could not set it aside. In essence, appellants sought to stay entry of the satisfaction of judgment because their judgment did not include the attorney’s fees awarded to them.

Porter Lumber Co., v. Trim Kris, Inc., 530 So.2d 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), stands for the proposition that a satisfaction of judgment cannot be entered before the time for appeal has passed. Although Porter is factually distinguishable, the court held:

We reverse the order denying appellant’s motion to vacate the satisfaction of judgment entered per section 55.141, Florida Statutes (1987). Section 55.141, Florida Statutes (1987) requires a judgment to be final before it can be satisfied by a deposit in the court registry. The record shows that the time for appeal had not passed as of the date the satisfaction issued and, in fact, the appellant entered an appeal from the final order on the same day the satisfaction was entered by the clerk of court. The appellate process was timely invoked and therefore the judgment will not be final until it is completed, when the mandate is issued. (citations omitted)

Id. at 399. Sub judice, appellee filed an appeal of the final judgment before the sheriff’s levy on the property, before the appellee paid the judgment and before the sheriff issued appellee the receipt. Thus, the trial judge erred in denying appellant’s motion which we choose to treat as a motion to stay entry of satisfaction of judgment. Until a mandate issued in the appeal, the judgment was not final. Until the judgment became final, it could not be satisfied.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

GUNTHER, STONE and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Universal Business System, Inc. v. Disney Vacation Club Management Corp.
768 So. 2d 7 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
578 So. 2d 24, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 3074, 1991 WL 50147, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ring-v-lizzo-fladistctapp-1991.