MURRAY A. CANDIB, APPELLANT,
v.
ROY J. CARVER, 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.
In this appeal of an amended final order, the plaintiff Candib challenges the trial court's clarification of its prior judgment in a property dispute with defendant Carver, arguing the court abused its discretion. The appellate court affirmed the amended order, finding no reversible error.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in amending the order and that no reversible error was committed. The amended order properly implemented the mandate from the prior appellate decision.
[1] A trial court's amended and supplemented final order is subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion.
[2] An appellate court will affirm a trial court's order if no reversible error has been made to appear after considering the record, briefs, and arguments of counsel.
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“After full consideration of all the evidence introduced in this cause and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter as well as arguments of counsel and memorandums of law the Court finds that not only is there no legal nuisance but also that the provisions of the condominium documents have not been violated by Defendant”
The trial court's clarified findings that formed the basis of the amended order, establishing no nuisance and no violation of condominium documents
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a dispute between Candib and Carver concerning condominium property. The trial court had entered a final order on April 6, 1976, wh…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1171] PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by plaintiff below from an order of the Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida amending and supplementing a final order previously entered in the cause. The order supplemented and amended was the basis of a prior appeal to this court. The facts and legal questions involved herein may be found in our opinion and decision in Candib v. Carver, 344 So. 2d 1312 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
The order being reviewed in this appeal is as follows:
“In accordance with the Opinion of the Third District Court of Appeal filed in this cause on April 26, 1977, and the Mandate thereon, and this court having fully considered said Opinion and Mandate and the dictates thereof and having held a hearing in accordance with same and the court being desirous of complying with said Mandate and the court being fully advised in the premises it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
“1. The Final Order of April 6, 1976, entered in this cause is hereby amended and clarified nunc pro tunc by the addition of the following after the second sentence of paragraph 1 of said Order:
“After full consideration of all the evidence introduced in this cause and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the matter as well as arguments of counsel and memorandums of law the Court finds that not only is there no legal nuisance but also that the provisions of the condominium documents have not been violated by Defendant and Defendant’s actions do not constitute an unreasonable source of annoyance or interfere with the peaceful and proper use of Plaintiff’s property as set forth in the condominium documents. There being no legal nuisance and no actionable violation of the condominium documents Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief or damages and shall go hence without day.
“2. In all other respects said Final Order of April 6,1976, shall remain as drafted.”
It is appellant’s contention in this appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in entering the order appealed.
We have carefully considered appellant’s point on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of counsel and have concluded that no reversible error has been made to appear, therefore the order appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.
KEHOE, J., dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CASA DEL MAR Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Richartz, 641 So. 2d 470 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…peaceful and proper use of his unit by the plaintiff.” Id. at 1315. After considering the evidence on remand, the trial court found as a factual matter that there had been no violation of the condominium documents by the defendant. Candib v. Carver, 363 So. 2d 1170, 1171 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). . The Association does not contest the dismissal of Count II.…
Authorities Cited
- Murray A. Candib v. Carver, 344 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)