Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). · Go Syfert
Search
Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“once the notices of appeal were filed, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the final judgment.”
24 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Losada (fladistctapp, 2012-06-13)
Treatment trajectory · 1985 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1985 2005 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Losada
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
common law certio-rari is the proper vehicle to review whether the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) JRS v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
once the notices of appeal were filed, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the final judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) J.R.S. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
once the notices of appeal were filed, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the final judgment.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) State v. Futch
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
common law certiorari is the proper vehicle to review whether the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fallon Rahima Jallali v. Knightsbridge Village Homeowners' Association, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
When an appeal is taken, “the lower court [is] divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the final judgment.” Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (citing Wilson Realty, Inc. v. David, 369 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
"Once the notice[ ] of appeal [is] filed, the lower court [is] divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to *74 the final judgment." Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (citing Wilson Realty, Inc. v. David, 369 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)); see also Palma Sola Harbour Condo., Inc. v. Huber, 374 So.2d 1135, 1138 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (holding that "a trial court is divested of jurisdiction upon notice of an appeal except with regard to those matters which do not interfere with the power and authority of the appellate court or with the rights of a party to the ap…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Department of Children & Family Services v. In the Interest of J.C.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
“Common law certiorari is the proper vehicle to review whether the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction.” Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Morse v. Moxley, 691 So.2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dep’t of Juvenile Justice v. Soud, 685 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dcfs v. Jc
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
"Common law certiorari is the proper vehicle to review whether the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction." Hudson v. Hoffmann, 471 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); see also Morse v. Moxley, 691 So.2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Dep't of Juvenile Justice v. Soud, 685 So.2d 1376 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Williams
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
E.g., State v. Blue, 603 So.2d 648, 649 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (a petition for a writ of certiorari is the proper method by which to challenge as beyond its jurisdiction a trial court's order reducing a sentence); Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (common law certiorari is the proper method by which to challenge an action of a lower court as in excess of its jurisdiction).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gordon v. Hollo
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
“Common law certiorari is the proper vehicle to review whether the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction.” Hudson v. Hoffman, 471 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 480 So.2d 1294 (Fla. 1985). 2 After the entry of final judgment, a successor judge may not set aside interlocutory orders entered by a predecessor judge.
discussed Cited "see" Gluck, Zach's Plumbing, LLC v. Wedge, D & M Assets 5, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Mann-Stack v. Homeside Lending, Inc., 982 So. 2d 72, 72-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (explaining that after a notice of appeal is filed, the trial court is "divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters 2 related to the final judgment" (quoting Hudson v. Hoffman, 471 So. 2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985))).
cited Cited "see" W.C. Riviera Partners, LC. v. W.C.R.P., LC.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
discussed Cited "see" Omasta v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117, 118 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (holding that “[ojnce the notices of appeal were filed, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the final judgment” and that “[cjommon law certiorari is the proper vehicle to review whether the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction”).
cited Cited "see" Kelley v. Rice
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
cited Cited "see" Wetherington v. STATE FARM MUT. AUTO.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Hudson v. Hofmann, 471 So.2d 117 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985).
Carl HUDSON, Cheryl Lea Battey, et al., Petitioners,
v.
Herbert HOFMANN and Arlene Hofmann, D/B/a Harbor Lights Mobilsites, Respondents.
85-592, 85-593.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
May 29, 1985.
471 So. 2d 117
Grimes.
Cited by 23 opinions  |  Published

[*118] John T. Allen, Jr., St. Petersburg, for petitioners.

John M. Strickland of Livingston, Patterson & Strickland, Sarasota, for respondents.

GRIMES, Acting Chief Judge.

This is a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order awarding respondents an assessment for permanent utilities improvements.

A declaratory judgment was entered in consolidated cases which allowed respondents to pass on to petitioners, tenants at respondents' mobile home park, the cost of permanent water and sewage improvements. The judgment recited that the lower court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment. Thereafter, in a petition for subsequent relief, respondents apprised the court of the actual cost of the project which was more than initially contemplated. Petitioners then filed timely notices of appeal directed to the original final judgment. After the notices of appeal were filed, a hearing was held at which testimony concerning the actual cost was taken. An order awarding respondents a definite utilities assessment recoverable from petitioners was subsequently entered.

Common law certiorari is the proper vehicle to review whether the lower court acted in excess of its jurisdiction. Ford Motor Co. v. Edwards, 363 So.2d 867 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Wright v. Sterling Drugs, Inc., 287 So.2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), cert. denied, 296 So.2d 51 (Fla. 1974). Once the notices of appeal were filed, the lower court was divested of jurisdiction to proceed with matters related to the final judgment. Wilson Realty, Inc. v. David, 369 So.2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). Here, the postjudgment order was related to the original final judgment in that it awarded the specific assessment to which the respondents were held entitled under the final judgment. Since respondents did not request a relinquishment of jurisdiction to the trial court, the trial court was without jurisdiction when it acted after appeal was taken. Fla.R.App.P. 9.600(b); United Services Automobile Association v. Smolensky, 391 So.2d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Wilson Realty, Inc.

We grant certiorari and quash the order awarding the assessment for permanent utilities improvements. Our holding does not preclude determination of the utilities improvements assessment provided relinquishment of jurisdiction is obtained from this court by proper motion.

DANAHY and LEHAN, JJ., concur.