AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
APAC-FLORIDA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 2003-03-12
No. 2D01-4613
CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
841 So. 2d 556 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2003)

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.


Holding

The court held that it lacks the power to stay a monetary judgment pending discretionary review in the supreme court when the motion to stay is filed more than fifteen days after the issuance of the appellate opinion and no timely motion for rehearing has been filed.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellant filed a motion to stay a monetary judgment more than fifteen days after the appellate court issued its opinion, seeking to invoke the discre…

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.


Opinion of the Court
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.

More than fifteen days after the issuance of our opinion in this case, the appellant filed a motion stating that it intended to file, or had filed, a notice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the supreme court. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(a), the appellant asks this court to stay the judgment on appeal pending further review.

The judgment on review is in the nature of a monetary judgment. This court has concluded that it does not have the power to withhold issuance of mandate in such a case when the motion to stay is filed more than fifteen days after the issuance of the opinion and no timely motion for rehearing has been filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330(a). See Fla.R.App. P. 9.340; State ex rel. Price v. McCord, 380 So. 2d 1037 (Fla.1980); see also State v. Miyasato, 805 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). Because this court is required to issue its mandate upon the expiration of the fifteen-day period established in rule 9.340, the court has concluded that it does not have authority thereafter to withdraw its mandate in order to stay a judgment except perhaps upon some extraordinary showing not present in this case.

Accordingly, this court denies the motion to stay. In so doing, however, we expressly recognize that the appellant seeks review in the supreme court in good faith and that, if the law allowed, this court would be willing to stay the trial court’s judgment during review in the supreme court upon a showing that the existing bond would remain in effect and would be adequate to secure the obligation.

This order is subject to review in the supreme court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.310(f). To the extent that this court maintains that it lacks jurisdiction to grant this stay, our order may also be subject to challenge by petition for writ of prohibition.

CASANUEVA and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw