Stern v. Stein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stern v. Stein

708 So. 2d 288, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 31, 1998 WL 2417

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 7, 1998

DocketNo. 96-2807

StatusPublished

This text of 708 So. 2d 288 (Stern v. Stein) 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

Stern v. Stein, 708 So. 2d 288, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 31, 1998 WL 2417 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge.

Appellant, William Stern, appeals a final judgment of fraudulent transfer entered in aid of execution of a default judgment in favor of appellees, Sanford and Frances Stein. Despite appellant’s claims to the contrary, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order. A reversal is nonetheless required because the default judgment upon which the post-judgment proceedings were predicated has since been vacated. See Stern v. Stein, 694 So.2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Our reversal is without prejudice to appellees pursuing any other rights or pre-judgment remedies they may have in the underlying action.

Our reversal does not affect the trial court’s separate and independent order awarding attorney’s fees to appellee Sanford Stein, which was entered as a sanction for appellant’s discovery violations. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s sanction order.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

STONE, C.J., and KARLAN, SANDY, Associate Judge, concur.

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

PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge.

Appellant, William Stern, appeals a final judgment of fraudulent transfer entered in aid of execution of a default judgment in favor of appellees, Sanford and Frances Stein. Despite appellant’s claims to the contrary, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to enter the order. A reversal is nonetheless required because the default judgment upon which the post-judgment proceedings were predicated has since been vacated. See Stern v. Stein, 694 So.2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Our reversal is without prejudice to appellees pursuing any other rights or pre-judgment remedies they may have in the underlying action.

Our reversal does not affect the trial court’s separate and independent order awarding attorney’s fees to appellee Sanford Stein, which was entered as a sanction for appellant’s discovery violations. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the trial court’s sanction order.

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED FOR PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION.

STONE, C.J., and KARLAN, SANDY, Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 So. 2d 288, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 31, 1998 WL 2417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-stein-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack