SCHMITZ v. SCHMITZ (2026)

Appellants John W. Schmitz and Lucila Schmitz argue that the trial court did not comply with our mandate in Schmitz v. Schmitz, 401 So. 3d 416 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024), when it did not conduct a new trial. But a careful reading of our prior decision and mandate reveals we did not explicitly require the trial court to conduct a new trial. And so, the trial court did not violate our mandate. See Berger v. Leposky, 103 So. 2d 628, 631 (Fla. 1958) (“The law is clear that the judgment of an appellate court in a case of that nature is a final judgment in the cause and compliance therewith by the lower court is a purely ministerial act, even to the extent that consent of the appellate court is thereafter required to permit presentation of new matter affecting the cause.”); Corkidi v. Franco Invs., LLC, 201 So. 3d 52, 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (“A trial court has the latitude to comply with an appellate court's implicit rather than explicit suggestions in the opinion.”); Torres v. Jones, 652 So. 2d 893, 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“A trial court's role upon the issuance of a mandate from an appellate court becomes purely ministerial, and its function is limited to obeying the appellate court's order or decree. A trial court does not have discretionary power to alter or modify the mandate of an appellate court in any way, shape or form.”) (citations omitted).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.