BRICKELL STATION TOWERS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
THE HONORABLE HARVEY GOLDSTEIN, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, JDC (AMERICA) CORPORATION, AND BUSH REAL ESTATE MANAGEMENT, INC., APPELLEES
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.
Court denied Brickell Station Towers' application for mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari seeking to prevent fee hearings for a former receiver, holding the trial court possessed subject matter jurisdiction to conduct such proceedings.
A trial court possesses subject matter jurisdiction to conduct fee hearings for a receiver and its attorney following reversal of the receivership order.
[1] A trial court retains subject matter jurisdiction to hear and determine requests for receiver and attorney fees following reversal of the underlying receivership appointm…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBrickell Station Towers sought to prohibit fee hearings for a former receiver and its attorney after an earlier appellate reversal of the receivership…
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 Enforcement Of Mandate cases and more on FLexlaw
Following reversal of an order appointing a receiver, Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (Am.) Corp., 560 So. 2d 1391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), Brickell Station Towers filed an application in the alternative for mandamus, prohibition, and common law certiorari which essentially sought to prohibit the lower tribunal from conducting fee hearings for the former receiver and its attorney. This court treated the proceeding as one to compel enforcement of the mandate in the prior proceeding and has now had the benefit of responses by the parties. Because of the decisional law emanating from Deauville Corp. v. Blount, 34 So. 2d 537 (Fla.1948), it appears that the within application is patently frivolous because the trial court obviously possessed subject matter jurisdiction to proceed, hear, and determine the request on the merits. The application for prohibition, common law certiorari, or mandamus is therefore denied as is the motion to enforce the mandate.
The application for attorney’s fees filed by JDC (America) Corporation for services rendered in this court is granted and the motion remanded to the trial court to hear and determine in the orderly course of its business. This order is final and forthwith. No motions for rehearing or clarification will be entertained.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Deauville Corp. v. IVY T. Blount, 160 Fla. 286 (Fla. 1948)
- Brickell Station Towers, Inc. v. JDC (America) Corp., 560 So. 2d 1391 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)