Frisard v. Frisard
Docket: No. 85-2670
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; August 13, 1986; Florida; State Appellate Court
The case involves the Fighting Frisards and addresses a unique issue regarding the timing of when a mandate is considered "issued" under Rule 9.400(a) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The amount in question is $857.04 in appellate costs taxed against the appellant. On April 24, 1985, the court issued an opinion in Frisard v. Frisard, and the mandate was dated June 21, 1985, but received and stamped by the lower court on June 24, 1985. The appellee's attorney filed a motion to tax costs on July 24, 1985. The appellant moved to dismiss this motion, arguing it was untimely as it was not filed within the required timeframe. The lower court denied the appellant's motion and ruled in favor of the appellee. The core issue is whether the mandate is deemed "issued" when it is dated or when it is received by the lower court. The appellant contends it was issued on June 21, while the appellee argues it was issued on June 24 when received. The court examined relevant precedents and found that the case Bouchard v. State did not apply as it was not concerned with mandate issuance. The appellee cited Colonel v. Reed, which held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction until a mandate was received. However, the current case involves the timeliness of filing a motion rather than jurisdiction to act. The court concluded that a mandate is officially "issued" on the date it is stamped by the clerk, rejecting the appellee's argument that issuance occurs upon receipt. As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case, directing the lower court to act in accordance with this ruling. Judges Letts and Gunther concurred with the decision.