MAURICIO UNGAR, APPELLANT/APPELLEE,
v.
PETRO GAS INDUSTRIENLAGEN GMBH AND CO. BIETRIEBS KG DUSSELDORF, APPELLEE/APPELLANT; VIMARLY, S.A., A COSTA RICAN CORPORATION, MAURICIO UNGAR AND GEORGINA BORBON BIEN DE UNGAR, APPELLANTS, V. PETRO GAS INDUSTRIENLAGEN GMBH AND CO. BIETRIEBS KG DUSSELDORF, A WEST GERMAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, APPELLEE
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.
This consolidated appeal addresses three related issues arising from a long-running dispute involving contempt orders and property judgments. The appellate court affirmed the contempt order, reversed the vacation of a money judgment based on the contempt sanction, and affirmed the adoption of a special master's findings regarding property ownership.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the contempt order after it had been twice affirmed on appeal; the trial court erred in vacating the second money judgment and was required to reinstate it as a ministerial duty; and the trial court properly adopted the special master's findings because they were supported by competent evidence and the master was better positioned to assess witness credibility.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to set aside a contempt order that has been previously decided by that court and affirmed on appeal.
[2] An appellate court should not reconsider points of law previously decided when doing so would amount to a second appeal of a question already determined.
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“lower court cannot change the law of the case as decided by the highest court hearing a case”
Establishes that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the affirmed contempt order
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceUngar had previously litigated disputes with Petro Gas, with two prior appellate decisions (Petro Gas I and II) affirming a contempt order from Octobe…
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 Ministerial Task cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case consists of three consolidated appeals from a contempt order (No. 87-1870), vacation of a money judgment (No. 87-2043), and denial of a motion to discharge a notice of lis pendens (No. 88-1352).
No. 87-1870
In this appeal, Ungar attempts to relitigate issues previously decided by the trial court and this court. Ungar v. Petro Gas Industrienlagen GMBH, 488 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (Petro Gas I); Ungar v. Petro Gas Industrielagen [sic] GMBH, 467 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (Petro Gas II). The trial court properly refused to set aside the contempt order, since it was without jurisdiction to do so. Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla.1984) (lower court cannot change the law of the case as decided by the highest court hearing a case); 3M Elec. Corp. v. Vigoa, 443 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 447 So. 2d 888 (Fla.1984) (appellate court should not reconsider points of law previously decided when such would amount to nothing more than a second appeal of a question determined on the first appeal).
No. 87-2043
The trial court erred by vacating the second money judgment which arose from the contempt order which this court twice affirmed. Petro Gas I and II. Although the trial court could, in its discretion, choose not to assess additional money sanctions, it could not, in light of prior affir-mances of the October, 1983, contempt order, decline to perform the merely ministerial task of computing and reducing to judgment the $500 per day contempt sanction. Brunner Enter., Inc., 452 So. 2d at 552.
No. 88-1352
The special master had abundant evidence to reach the conclusion that Vimarly, the family holding company, held title to the condominium units for Ungar. The trial court therefore properly adopted the master’s report. Bragassa v. Bragassa, 505 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (trial court cannot overturn master’s findings if they are supported by competent evidence); Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977) (where there is conflicting testimony and the veracity of witnesses is a question to be considered, the master who has heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor while testifying is in a better position than the trial court to determine such conflicts; the trial court should not overturn those findings unless they are clearly erroneous).
No. 87-1870: order of the trial court affirmed; No. 87-2043: order reversed and cause remanded with directions to reinstate the second contempt judgment; No. 88-1352: order affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Torres v. Hon. Rosemary Usher Jones, 652 So. 2d 893 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…severally liable. It was error for the trial court to modify the final judgment on remand, and to change the law of the case as determined by the highest court hearing the case. Ungar v. Petro Gas Industrienlagen CMBH & Co. Bietriebs KG Dusseldorf, 532 So. 2d 1099 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citing Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla.1984)), rev. denied, 542 So. 2d 991 (Fla.1989). The trial court is directed to enter a judgment for money damages in favor of the petitioners and agains…
Authorities Cited
- Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla., 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984)
- Bragassa v. Bragassa, 505 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Ciccarelli v. Ciccarelli, 352 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- 3M Elec. Corp. v. Vigoa, 443 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- McGROTTY v. Marino, 488 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)