• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Retaining jurisdiction for enforcement

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

jimmy2

Member
What is the name of your state? Florida
If a circuit court in Florida entered a final order/judgment (on awarding damages, sentencing, etc) and did not put a statement such as “Jurisdiction is retained for the purpose of enforcing this order” or any statement regarding retaining the jurisdiction on enforcing that order then can that court enforce that order?
I received two such orders, in two different cases, but one of them has the above statement on jurisdiction and the other one has nothing about jurisdiction or enforcement. I would like to know how the orders differ in terms of enforcing.
 


Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
In Massachusetts, when a judge retains jurisdiction, it means that any future actions on that case will be brought before that judge. Otherwise, it will be brought before whatever judge is most convenient for the court.
 

Litigator22

Active Member
What is the name of your state? Florida If a circuit court in Florida entered a final order/judgment (on awarding damages, sentencing, etc) and did not put a statement such as "Jurisdiction is retained for the purpose of enforcing this order" or any statement regarding retaining the jurisdiction on enforcing that order then can that court enforce that order?

I received two such orders, in two different cases, but one of them has the above statement on jurisdiction and the other one has nothing about jurisdiction or enforcement. I would like to know how the orders differ in terms of enforcing.
To begin a court cannot function in a dual judicial capacity in one proceeding as is inferred by your expression: "a final order/judgment awarding damages, sentencing, etc.."!

A criminal court can order that the defendant make restitution for the benefit of the victim, but its an adjunct to the criminal process. Whereas "awarding damages" implies compensation for a civil wrong.

Secondly, when appropriate courts have the inherent power to enforce their own orders rendering needless that such orders express that ability.

The circumstance and conditions by which that innate authority can be utilized and when a trial court is permitted to retain jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter in litigation are procedural issue much too complex to be addressed here. But both are fundamental and implicit.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top