MYRTLE GROVE, INC., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
IRMA S. TAYLOR, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
The State of Florida sought to intervene in an appeal to claim 60% of a punitive damages award under Florida law, but the trial court had already granted a new trial on punitive damages before the appeal was filed. The court denied the State's intervention motions as premature because there was currently no punitive damages award to claim.
The State of Florida's motions to intervene and to relinquish jurisdiction are denied without prejudice because the State lacks standing in the current posture of the case, as there is no punitive damages award in the judgment currently on appeal. The State may seek further relief in the trial court after the mandate is issued if Taylor prevails on cross-appeal.
[1] A state's right to a portion of a punitive damage award is contingent on the existence of such an award in the final judgment.
[2] A party seeking to intervene in an appellate proceeding may be denied intervention if their claim is premature and lacks standing in the current posture of the case.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The judgment of the trial court now does not provide for a punitive damage award. Unless the new trial order is reversed on cross-appeal, there is nothing to which the State may assert its claimed share.”
Establishes the basis for the court's holding that the State lacks standing to intervene—the current judgment contains no punitive damages award.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMyrtle Grove, Inc. was ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages to Irma S. Taylor in a trial court judgment. The State of Florida subsequently…
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 Relinquishment Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER ON THE STATE OF FLORIDA’S MOTIONS TO INTERVENE AND TO RELINQUISH JURISDICTION
PER CURIAM.
A judgment was entered in this cause wherein Myrtle Grove, Inc., defendant below, was ordered to pay compensatory and punitive damages to plaintiff Irma S. Taylor. Shortly thereafter the State of Florida moved to intervene in the trial court and moved to alter or amend the judgment. Movant sought to assert its right to 60 percent of the punitive damage award pursuant to section 768.73, Florida Statutes. Before the State’s motions could be heard, however, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion for new trial on the issue of punitive damages. Defendant appealed the final judgment awarding damages and plaintiff cross-appealed the order which effectively struck the punitive damage award.
The State of Florida has now requested that it be allowed to intervene in this appellate proceeding and/or that jurisdiction be relinquished to the trial court for disposition of its motions which had not been acted on when the notice of appeal was filed and the trial court was divested of jurisdiction. Appellant opposes the motions, characterizing them as premature, and we agree. The judgment of the trial court now does not provide for a punitive damage award. Unless the new trial order is reversed on cross-appeal, there is nothing to which the State may assert its claimed share. In essence, the State of Florida has no standing in this case in its current posture. We therefore deny the motions before us without prejudice to the State’s right to seek further relief in the trial court after issuance of mandate if Taylor prevails on cross-appeal.
ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur. JOANOS, C.J., dissents without opinion.