CORAL CONTRACTORS, INC., ETC., AND ARTHUR R. SIMMONS, ETC., PETITIONERS,
v.
THE HONORABLE MAURICE PAUL, ETC., RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Petitioners sought a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial court from requiring them to appear in Orange County for supplementary execution proceedings, arguing the requirement violated Florida law. The court denied the petition, holding that prohibition was not an appropriate remedy because the trial court had jurisdiction and ordinary appellate remedies were available.
The writ of prohibition is denied because it is an extraordinary remedy unavailable when ordinary appellate remedies exist and are adequate. The trial court retained jurisdiction over the supplementary proceedings as the court that rendered the original judgment. Additionally, the issue became moot when the trial court rescinded the appearance requirement.
[1] Prohibition is an extraordinary writ and is not available when ordinary and usual remedies are adequate and complete.
[2] Prohibition will not lie to prevent or correct an error by a lower court that has jurisdiction over the case.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Prohibition is an extraordinary writ and cannot be resorted to when ordinary and usual remedies are available and are adequate and complete.”
Establishes the foundational principle that prohibition is not available when other remedies exist
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn supplementary execution proceedings, the trial court initially required the defendants in execution (petitioners) to appear in Orange County. The r…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Extraordinary Writ cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. Prohibition is an extraordinary writ and cannot be resorted to when ordinary and usual remedies are available and are adequate and complete. 25 Fla.Jur. Prohibition, § 8 (1959). Prohibition will not lie to prevent or correct an error by a lower court that has jurisdiction over the case. 25 Fla.Jur., Prohibition, § 6 (1959). In the proceeding supplementary to execution below, the trial court first required defendants in execution (petitioners here) to appear in Orange County, although the record reflects that the individual defendant is a Broward County resident and the corporate defendant has its principal place of business in Broward County. Although contending that such requirement was erroneous under section 56.29(2), Florida Statutes1, petitioners nowhere contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the proceedings, the judgment upon which execution was sought having been rendered by that court. That the court which renders the judgment retains jurisdiction over the supplementary proceedings is clear. Schwartz v. Capitol City First National Bank, 365 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).
The record shows that the trial court rescinded the requirement that defendants appear in Orange County. Thus this point is moot. If petitioners contend that any other error has been committed, ordinary appellate remedies are available.
Petition DENIED.
SHARP and COBB, JJ., concur. . § 56.29(2), Fla.Stat. (1979):
On such plaintiffs motion the court shall require the defendant in execution to appear before it or a master at a time and place specified by the order in the county of the defendant’s residence to be examined concerning his property.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lozito v. Prof'l Sav. Bank, 534 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Coral Contractors, Inc. v. Paul, 387 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Schwartz v. Capital City First National Bank, 365 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979).…
-
Neff v. Adler, 416 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…ace of service. The court may consider the affidavit, or any other competent evidence, in determining whether service has been properly made. Appellant was apparently served in accordance with section 48.194. . See Coral Contractors, Inc. v. Paul, 387 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).…
-
Patterson v. Venne, 594 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ty. Execution having been returned unsatisfied, the plaintiff-judgment creditor initiated supplementary proceedings in Dade County pursuant to section 56.29. Venue is proper where the underlying action was tried. See Coral Contractors, Inc. v. Paul, 387 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Schwartz v. Capital City First Nat’l Bank, 365 So. 2d 181, 183 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Patterson contends, however, that the order impleading her erroneously requires her to appear personally in Dade County “for a hearing and…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Schwartz v. Cap. City First Nat'l Bank, 365 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)