THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOR USE AND BENEFIT OF DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, AND EDDIE BURKE, APPELLEES

Fla. 3d DCA | 1975-04-22
No. 74-1305
Before BARKDULL, C. J., NATHAN, J., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
311 So. 2d 123 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1975) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.

Synopsis

Florida's appeal of an order vacating a final judgment against a surety company on a defaulted appearance bond. The court reversed the vacation order, holding that the trial court erred in vacating the judgment while an appeal challenging an earlier denial of the surety's motion to vacate was pending.


Holding

The trial court erred in vacating the judgment during the pendency of the appeal. The order vacating the final judgment is reversed and the November 20, 1973 final judgment is reinstated.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court errs in vacating a final judgment during the pendency of an appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate that same judgment.

[2] An order vacating a final judgment necessarily includes setting aside prior orders denying motions to vacate that judgment.

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

Key Quotes

“it was error to vacate the judgment during the pendency of the said appeal”

Establishes the core holding that a trial court cannot vacate a judgment while an appeal from a related order is pending

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Eddie Burke was charged with issuing a worthless check and released on an appearance bond. Burke failed to appear on August 24, 1973, and the bond was…

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
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by the plaintiff below from an order of the circuit court of Dade County vacating a final judgment plaintiff had obtained against the surety (Public Service Mutual Insurance Company) on a defaulted appearance bond.

Eddie Burke was charged by information with issuing a worthless check. He was released on the appearance bond. Burke failed to appear on August 24, 1973 as required. The bond was forfeited by the court (§ 903.26(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.), and certification thereof was filed and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court on August 24, 1973 (§ 903.26(4) (a) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. On October 23, 1973 the state, for use and benefit of Dade County, moved in another division of the circuit court for judgment on the bond. Final judgment against the surety was entered on November 20, 1973. On January 2, 1974 the surety moved the court to vacate the judgment on the ground that the bonded defendant had been produced by the surety on December 7, 1973. See § 903.27(2) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. By an order entered February 25, 1974 the court denied the motion and a subsequent motion for rehearing. The surety appealed.

Meanwhile, after the final judgment had been entered on the bond against the surety on suit of the state, an order was entered in another division of the circuit court (in the criminal action), on January 8, 1974, vacating the bond forfeiture which initially had been made there. That action of the court was ineffectual because untimely. § 903.26(5) (d) Fla.Stat, F.S.A; South American Fire Insurance Company v. State of Florida, for use and benefit of Dade County, Fla.App. 1972, 270 So. 2d 374.

Thereafter, while the surety’s appeal from the order denying its motion to vacate the final judgment on the bond was pending in this court, the surety again moved the trial court (in the case in which the final judgment had been entered) for vacation of the judgment, and requested that the matter be transferred for that purpose to the division of the court in which the criminal proceeding had been lodged.

The ground of that motion to vacate the judgment was that the accused had made restitution. The matter was not so transferred but the court, acting on said motion, entered an order on August 12, 1974 vacating the final judgment for certain reasons recited in the order. From that order of August 12, 1974 vacating the final judgment, the state, for use and benefit of the county, filed this appeal. We find error, and reverse.

The order vacating the final judgment necessarily involved and included setting aside the court’s order of February 26, 1974 denying the surety’s earlier motion to vacate the final judgment, as to which order an appeal was then pending. Some weeks later, on September 9, 1974, this court dismissed said appeal, for substantial failure of the appellant to comply with the appellate rules with relation thereto (300 So. 2d 92). However, aside from the merits of the order vacating the judgment, as to which we express no opinion here, we hold it was error to vacate the judgment during the pendency of the said appeal. Sanders v. McCaughey, Fla.App.1966, 192 So. 2d 774; Liberman v. Rhyne, Fla.App. 1971, 248 So. 2d 242.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the final judgment entered by the trial court on November 21, 1973 is reinstated.

It is so ordered.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Burke, 335 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
    …ing the final judgment of forfeiture. This court held it was error to vacate this judgment while the surety’s appeal directed to the order of denial of February 25 was pending in this court. See State v. Public Service Mutual Ins. Co., Fla.App.1975, 311 So. 2d 123. After receipt of this court’s mandate reinstating the final judgment of forfeiture, the circuit court again entered its order vacating final judgment and the State appeals. We reverse. This cause having been appealed twice to this court (300 So. 2…
    1 / 2

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw