231 SO2D 874 - State Ex Rel. Kaufman v. Sutton

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently June 1997

1 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Schonfeld & Feldman, Miami, for appellant.

¶2Ruth Sutton, in pro. per.

¶3Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

¶4 *875 BARKDULL, Judge.

¶5The appellant filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Dade County, Florida, seeking the issuance of an alternative writ of mandamus commanding Ruth Sutton, as Justice of the Peace of District Three, Dade County, Florida, through her agents to accept the filing of a complaint for unlawful detainer, alleging a cause of action pursuant to § 37.011, Fla. Stat. (1967), F.S.A., averring that said complaint had been tendered to the justice of the peace or her agents and that they had refused to accept same for filing. The trial court refused to issue the alternative writ and this appeal ensued. We reverse.

¶6The acceptance of the filing of a complaint is a mere ministerial act, and the officer charged with the responsibility of receiving same is required to accept what is tendered to him if it is accompanied by the proper fee. Newport v. Culbreath, 120 Fla. 152, 162 So. 340; State ex rel. Druissi v. Almand, Fla. 1954, 75 So.2d 905. See also: State v. Quarles, 13 Idaho 252, 89 P. 636; State ex rel. Wanamaker v. Miller, 164 Ohio St. 176, 128 N.E.2d 110; State ex rel. Dawson v. Roberts, 165 Ohio St. 341, 135 N.E.2d 409; Malinou v. McElroy, 99 R.I. 277, 207 A.2d 44. It is not incumbent upon one who has the ministerial function of accepting the filing of a complaint to judicially determine the legal significance of the tendered document.

¶7By this opinion, we are neither approving nor disapproving the alleged cause of action for unlawful detainer, as this is the judicial function which should first be exercised by the trial judge. Newport v. Culbreath, supra.

¶8Therefore, for the reasons above stated the order here under review, declining to issue the alternative writ of mandamus, is hereby reversed with directions to the trial court to issue the alternative writ and take such other proceedings as are consistent with this opinion.

¶9Reversed and remanded, with directions.