THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF DADE COUNTY, APPELLANT,
v.
EDDIE BURKE AND PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, APPELLEE
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 appealed an order vacating a final judgment of forfeiture on an appearance bond. The appellate court reversed, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the judgment after previous appeals and mandates.
No, the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the appealed order vacating the final judgment of forfeiture because the matter had been previously addressed by appellate court mandates.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter an order vacating a final judgment of forfeiture while an appeal concerning that judgment is pending.
[2] A trial court's order vacating a final judgment of forfeiture is subject to reversal when entered without jurisdiction.
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“This cause having been appealed twice to this court (300 So. 2d 92 and 311 So. 2d 123), the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the appealed order vacating finai judgment of forfeiture.”
Establishes the core reasoning for the reversal based on lack of jurisdiction due to prior appeals.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie Burke was released on a $1,000 appearance bond. He failed to appear, and a forfeiture order and final judgment were entered against him and his …
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 Jurisdiction Of Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, the State of Florida, appeals an order vacating final judgment of forfeiture on an appearance bond against the defendant surety.
Eddie Burke was informed against for issuing a worthless check and was released on a $1,000.00 appearance bond. Burke failed to appear in court and on August 24, 1973 an order of forfeiture, followed by a final judgment on November 20, was entered against him and his surety, Public Service Mutual Insurance Company, defendant-appellee herein [§ 903.26(4) (a), Fla.Stat.]. The surety moved to vacate this judgment on the ground it had produced Burke on December 7, 1973. This motion was denied on February 25, 1974 and the surety appealed. Meanwhile, the criminal division of the circuit court entered an order vacating the August 24, bond forfeiture.1 During the pendency of the appeal, the surety again moved the court (civil division) to vacate the final judgment on the ground that Burke had made restitution. On August 12, 1974 the court entered an order vacating the November 20, 1973 final judgment. The surety’s appeal from the February 25 order was dismissed and the second appeal was filed by the State from the order of August 12, 1974 vacating 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. 2d 92 and 311 So. 2d 123), the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the appealed order vacating finai judgment of forfeiture.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court to reinstate the final judgment.
So ordered.
. This action was ineffectual because it was not timely, § 903.26(5) (d), Fla.Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co. v. State, 300 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- The State of Fla. for Use & Benefit of Dade Cnty. v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 311 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)