HomeMy WebLinkAbout1901 t
4~`T1i1
IN THS CIRCUIT COURT OF THB NINB-
TBBNTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
CASB N0. 78-232 CA
8UG8NE CARTBR,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, 4~'~'111
FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, POLICE ~
DEPARTMENT, and AETNA.CASUALTY
AND SURETY COMPANY, I9~0 ~A1~ 2O IW +1~ S2
Defendants. E ~tp'
~ i ~ SA
CIRgJIT
' RFtM~ YERiF1E~D
O R D E R
THIS CAUSB came on to be heard on Defendants' Motion
to Tax Costs following the Final Summary Judgment entered in
favor of Defendants on January 15, 1980, wherein taxation of
costs was specifically reserved by separate motion and hearing,
and the Court having duly considered same, finds and determines
that it has been divested of jurisdiction bq an appeal from the
summary final judgment. Rule 9.b00(b), Rules of Appellate Pro-
.
cedure and Wilson Realty, Inc. v David, 369 Sold 75 (2 DCA 1979).
~ Defendants contend that this Court does have juris-
E
diction to adjudicate costs during the pendency of an appeal,
citing Roberts n Askew, 260 Sold 492 (Fla. 1972). Howevei, that
case merely holds that costs may be adjudicated during the
pendency of an appeal and even after the appeal has been con-
cluded, but does not deal with the question of whether the lower
Court has~3urisdiction to adjudicate costs during the pendency
of an appeal. In that case, there was no appeal pending from
the final judgment which provided that costs may be taxed upon
motion. Under Rule 9.600, Rules of Appellate Procedure, the.
appellate court, by order, may permit the lower court to proceed
~
with the assessment of costs. Otherwise, the lower court has no
t
E jurisdiction during the pendency of the appeal.
DONE and 0 RED in Vero Beach, Indian River County,
Florida this ay of May, 1980
Copies furnished to: it it J ge
Ralph Flowers, Esq.
Everett Van Gaasbeck, Esq. -
a~331 P~E190U
Y _ -