IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Court adopts the proposed amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) to conform to recent legislative changes regarding appellate jurisdiction.
[1] District courts of appeal have jurisdiction over appeals of county court orders or judgments where the amount in controversy exceeds $15,000, as amended by legislative ac…
[2] Amendments to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1)(B) expand the appellate jurisdiction of district courts of appeal to include nonfinal orders in county court…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee proposed an amendment to Rule 9.030(b)(1)(B) in response to a legislative act changing the appellate…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction Of District Courts Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The Court has for consideration an amendment to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(1) (Jurisdiction of District Courts of Appeal; Appeal Jurisdiction) proposed by The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee (ACR Committee). 1 We have jurisdiction2 and amend the rule as proposed.
The amendment to subdivision (b)(1)(B) of rule 9.030 is in response to chapter 2019-58, section 1, Laws of Florida, which amended section 26.012(1)(a),
1. The ACR Committee originally proposed this amendment in case number SC19-1354. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rules of Civ. Pro., Fla. Small Claims Rules, & Fla. Rules of App. Pro.–Jurisdiction, No. SC19-1354, slip op at 2 n.2. (Fla. Nov. 14, 2019) (declining to adopt ACR Committee’s proposed rule amendments and directing the Committee to file a new out-of-cycle report explaining its proposals).
2. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const. Florida Statutes (2018), to except from the circuit courts’ appellate jurisdiction appeals of county court orders or judgments where the amount in controversy is greater than $15,000, thus giving the district courts of appeal jurisdiction over that class of appeals. See art. V, § 4(b)(1) (giving district courts of appeal jurisdiction over appeals, that may be taken as of a matter right, from final judgments or orders of trial courts not directly appealable to this Court or a circuit court). As amended, subdivision (b)(1)(B) of rule 9.030 provides that district courts of appeal shall review, by appeal, nonfinal orders as prescribed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130 and no longer limits the district courts’ jurisdiction over nonfinal orders to circuit court nonfinal orders. This amendment allows authorized appeals of nonfinal orders in county court cases in which the amount in controversy is greater than $15,000 to be heard by the district courts of appeal, which under section 26.012(1)(a) will now have appellate jurisdiction over the final judgments or orders in those cases. See art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const. (providing that district courts of appeal may review interlocutory orders in trial court cases in which the district courts have appellate jurisdiction to review final judgments and orders).
Accordingly, the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are amended as reflected in the appendix to this opinion. Deletions are indicated by struck-through type. The amendments shall become effective January 1, 2020, at 12:01 a.m.
Because the amendments were not published for comment prior to their adoption, -2-interested persons shall have seventy-five days from the date of this opinion in which to file comments with the Court.3 It is so ordered.
CANADY, C.J., and POLSTON, LABARGA, LAWSON, and MUÑIZ, JJ., concur. THE FILING OF A MOTION FOR REHEARING SHALL NOT ALTER THE