3d DCA Watch -- Continuously Opining On Matters Not Before Us Since 1957!

Hear ye Hear ye, the 3d DCA is festooned this day with officially sanctioned holiday cheer, dispensing PCAs to all the good little boy and girl litigants, and indubitably (real word used last week by Judge Shepherd!) sharing the peaceful joys of the season.

It's true the holiday party got a little out of hand, what with the eggnog-spiked swilled coffee, the well-placed mistletoe hanging from Judge [ed. -- name deleted] or possibly his chambers, the "guess what's under my robe" game that quickly went awry, and of course the traditional gathering 'round the bunker fire to hear a spirited reading of the most gruesome cautionary Heinrich Hoffman fairy tales -- in their original German.

Still, that's what I call an old-fashioned 3d DCA Christmas!

Onward....

Crombie v. Williams:

This is an appeal of a denial of a petition for a mother to relocate to Jacksonville with her minor child.  In the process of reversing Chief Judge Brown below, the 3d also remanded with instructions to consider the mother's pending petition for child support.

This leads Judge Shepherd, in a concurrence, to take issue:

I am not unmindful of the several good reasons why Crombie wishes to move to Jacksonville. I write only to remark that we tread on dangerous ground when we opine on matters not before us, and express my belief it is as likely as not in this case that Crombie has been, at least to some extent, the author of her own undoing.

Hey, I was with Judge S through the "we tread on dangerous grounds when we opine on matters not before us" but correct me if I'm wrong, isn't the rest of the sentence -- "my belief it is as likely as not in this case that Crombie has been, at least to some extent, the author of her own undoing" -- opining on matters not before us?

Or maybe it's the eggnog.

Bay Park v. Triple M. Roofing:

The 3d sends the appellee a holiday card:

Finally, because the motion filed below represents the quintessential example of a frivolous motion rendering the time spent in the prosecution of this appeal equally wasteful, we grant appellant’s motion for costs pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.400(a). As to attorney’s fees pursuant to rule 9.400(b), the Florida Supreme Court has stated that the language of rule 9.400(b) requires that “a party seeking attorney’s fees in an appellate court must provide substance and specify the particular contractual, statutory, or other substantive basis for an award of fees on appeal. It is simply insufficient for parties to only refer to rule 9.400 or to rely on another court's order in support of a motion for attorney's fees for services rendered in an appellate court.” United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Phillips, 775 So. 2d 921, 922 (Fla. 2000). Accordingly, we deny appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees filed prior to the reply brief. At the same time, the Court on its own motion orders the appellees, Triple M. Roofing and IRT-Arcon, Inc., shall show cause within ten (10) days as to why this Court should not impose sanctions, including attorney’s fees, against the appellees and their counsel pursuant to section 57.105, Florida Statutes (2010), and Rule 9.410 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Oh, also:  Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!!