KOSCOT INTERPLANETARY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND GLENN W. TURNER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF KOSCOT INTERPLANETARY, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, ON THE RELATION OF DOYLE CONNER, AS COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND AS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF FLORIDA CONSUMER'S COUNCIL, THE COUNCIL CHARGED WITH THE OPERATION OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER'S SERVICES, AND COLLIS H. WHITE, AS COUNTY SOLICITOR, ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA, 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.
Koscot Interplanetary and its CEO Glenn Turner appeal a trial court's denial of their motion to submit a marketing and distribution plan for review under an existing declaratory decree that prohibited multilevel distributorship sales. The appellate court holds that the trial judge erred in refusing to consider the proposed plan and reversed the denial.
The trial court erred in denying the motion. A court may review a proposed plan under a declaratory decree to determine compliance, particularly where the decree is unclear or ambiguous, as this constitutes supplemental relief authorized by statute to make the judgment effective.
[1] A trial court may grant supplemental relief on a declaratory decree to make the judgment effective.
[2] Supplemental relief on a declaratory decree requires reasonable notice to the adversary and a right to show cause why further relief should not be granted.
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“Appellants were seeking supplemental relief on a declaratory decree which is authorized by statute. Such relief contemplates an additional adjudication with reasonable notice to the adversary and a right to show cause why further relief should not be granted.”
Establishes that supplemental relief in declaratory decree proceedings is statutorily authorized and requires notice and opportunity to be heard
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA declaratory decree action filed by the State of Florida (through the Commissioner of Agriculture and County Solicitor) resulted in a consent order e…
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 Supplemental Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants-defendants appeal from an order denying their motion to consider a marketing and distribution plan. We reverse.
On May 28, 1969, the trial judge entered a consent order in a declaratory decree action filed by appellees-plaintiffs which essentially prohibited appellants, in the cosmetic business, from selling distributorships on a multilevel basis but placed no limitation or restriction on the hiring of salesmen for the sale of Koscot products at either wholesale or retail prices or in the granting of sale discounts, provided there be no violation of the prohibition on the sale of multilevel distributorships. The court also established an eighteen (18) month period within which it would entertain any complaints concerning violations and retained jurisdiction of the cause for entry of such other and further relief as may have become necessary.
The genesis of this appeal arose on June 30, 1969, by appellants filing a motion requesting the court to consider an attached marketing and distribution plan. Both appellants and appellees desired the court to review the proposal for a determination of whether it complied with the intent and meaning of the declaratory decree, however, the court determined it could not review or construe its own judgment and summarily denied the motion.
Appellants were seeking supplemental relief on a declaratory decree which is authorized by statute. Such relief contemplates an additional adjudication with reasonable notice to the adversary and a right to show cause why further relief should not be granted. This relief may be that which is necessary to make effective the judgment. F.S.1967, Section 86.061, F.S.A.; Thomas v. Cilbe, Inc., Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 397.
Clearly declaratory relief proceedings are not intended for questioning judicial decrees already entered, but where a decree has become the source of definite rights and is unclear or ambiguous, relief may be granted, de Marigny v. de Marigny, Fla.1949, 43 So.2d 442.
F.S.1967, Chapter 86, F.S.A., providing for declaratory decrees, is substantive and remedial. It is to be liberally administered and construed. In doing so, a multiplicity of suits can be avoided while affording an adequate and expedient remedy for litigants in one action. Thomas v. Cilbe, Inc., supra.
*26Accordingly the trial judge should review the proposed plan under the spectrum established by its decree.
For these reasons the order denying the motion to review is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
OWEN, J., and ADAMS, ALTO (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Demarigny v. Demarigny, 43 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1949)
- Thomas v. Cilbe, Inc., 104 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)