Cuban Air Force, FAR v. BergstresserCuban Air Force, FAR v. Bergstresser
Bergstresser & Taylor, Kenneth L. Ryskamp, Miami, for respondent.
HENDRY, Judge.
This matter came on before us initially upon defendant‘s petition for a constitutional stay writ pursuant to Rule 4.5, subd. g, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., which was filed together with a petition for writ of certiorari. At the time of the oral argument on the stay writ it was stipulated, in open court, by and between counsel for the parties that the petition for writ of certiorari be considered without further argument or briefs.
The petitioner seeks review of an order of the circuit court shortening the time of sale of an airplane under execution as provided by
“Considered, ordered, and adjudged that the Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, be and he is hereby authorized and directed to forthwith advertise the sale of a certain Cessna Twin Engine Airplane Serial CUN 626, INRA D.P.T. -O- Maquinara to be held at public auction, by advertisement to be published in a daily newspaper of general circulation on December 15, 1961, and further that said property shall be sold at said public auction on Monday, December 18, 1961 at 1:30 o‘clock P.M., * * * and in the event cash is bid in said sale, that the Sheriff of Dade County, Florida, shall forthwith thereafter turn over said cash in full, less the properly deducted expenses and charges for conducting said sale, to the plaintiff-petitioner Richard B. Bergstresser or his attorney, Richard G. Taylor.”
There are two principal grounds urged for quashing the above order. The initial ground is that the circuit judge was without authority to shorten the statutory period of sale absent a showing that the requirements of
Since this is a proceeding for a writ of certiorari, we are limited to the record in reviewing the order complained of. We find that the petition for the order of short sale is insufficient to support the order since there is no showing in the petition or the record before us that the airplane is property which “is subject to decay, and will not sell for its full value if held for a period of 30 days.”
It was further error to direct in the order of sale that the entire proceeds be turned over to the respondent as judgment creditor, even though the proceeds from the sale will likely be in excess of the amount due the respondent. The proper direction is to provide that the Sheriff pay to the judgment creditor only that portion of the proceeds to which he is entitled.
It follows, therefore, that the order of short sale should be quashed. However, this is not with prejudice to any rights the respondent may have with regard to securing an order of short sale upon a proper showing that he is entitled to relief under
Writ granted and order quashed.
Notes
That section provides:
“55.44 Execution sales; notice
“Notice of all sales under execution shall be given by advertisement once each week for four successive weeks in a newspaper published in the county in which the sale is to take place, or if there is no newspaper published in the county, by posting notices at the door of the court house of the county, and at three other public places in the county, for thirty days; but the time of such notice may be shortened in the discretion of the court from which the execution issued, upon affidavit that the property to be sold is subject to decay, and will not sell for its full value if held for a period of thirty days.”