IN RE W.S., W.S., AND R.S., MINOR CHILDREN. WILLIAM SCHINDLER, ET AL. APPELLANTS,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1989-03-09
No. 88-2406
DANIEL, J., concurs., COWART, J., dissents with opinion.
541 So. 2d 1257 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that it lacks jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the final judgment, as juvenile rules apply and a motion for rehearing does not toll the appeal time.


Facts & Procedural History

Appellants filed a timely motion for rehearing after a final judgment of permanent commitment of children. The notice of appeal was filed more than th…

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.


Opinion of the Court
DAUKSCH, Judge.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This matter is before the court on appel-lee’s motion to dismiss. Appellants filed a timely motion for rehearing after final judgment. Ordinarily that would stop the running of the thirty-day period in which a notice of appeal may be filed. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). Although Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.010 states “[tjhese rules shall supercede all conflicting rules and statutes,” Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820(b)(3) says “[a] motion for rehearing shall not toll the time for the taking of an appeal.” Because this is an appeal from an order of permanent commitment of children, and because rule 8.820 was adopted after the appellate rules were revised in 1977, the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure apply rather than the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The Second District Court of Appeal has also addressed this conflict in the rules and found that the supreme court must have intended to limit the time for appeal in juvenile cases. That court certified this issue as a question of great public importance and the supreme court has accepted jurisdiction. In re A.A., 531 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988), rev. granted Case No. 73,187 (Fla. October 20, 1988); In the Interest of E.P., 507 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) rev. granted Case No. 70, 678 (June 11, 1987).

Because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the final judgment this court has no jurisdiction.

We also certify the following question as one of great public importance:

DOES FLORIDA RULE OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 8.820(b)(3) RESCIND FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.020(g) THEREBY LIMITING THE TIME FOR TAKING AN APPEAL TO THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF A FINAL ORDER ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING?

Appeal dismissed.

DANIEL, J., concurs.

COWART, J., dissents with opinion.

Dissent
COWART, Judge,

COWART, Judge,

dissenting.

The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that appeals must be taken within 30 days after rendition of the order to be reviewed. (See Rule 9.110(b) as to final orders; 9.130(b) as to non-final orders and 9.140(b)(2) as to appeals by defendants in criminal cases.) However, Rule 9.020(g) defining rendition provides broadly that an order is not deemed rendered until disposition of an “authorized and timely motion for new trial or rehearing.” Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820 authorizes a motion for rehearing as to dispositive orders in juvenile cases. Appellant filed a timely motion for rehearing in this juvenile case and filed an appeal within 30 days of the disposition of that motion.

However, stuck down in the juvenile rehearing rule 8.820 under the heading (b) Time and Method is a provision that “[a] motion for rehearing shall not toll the time for the taking of an appeal.” This juvenile rule is in direct conflict with appellate rule 9.020(g) and sets a trap for unwary attorneys. As a matter of good procedure, this conflict between these two rules should be resolved by harmonizing them or, at the very least, the conflict should be made abundantly clear such as by expressly providing in appellate rule 9.020(g) that it does not apply to motions for rehearing in juvenile cases with a cross-reference to juvenile rule 8.820(b)(3).

Until that is done, in the interests of justice, the conflict between the two rules should be resolved by giving preeminence to the appellate rule. All rules of procedure should be written and construed to serve the just determination of every action and every appeal on the merits.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • In the Interest of Baby BOY L., 545 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
    …curring specially. Although I agree that we are bound by the Supreme Court’s recent decision, I agree with the concerns expressed by Judge Cowart in the recent case of In re W.S., W.S., and R.S. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 541 So. 2d 1257 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), Cowart, J., dissents with opinion: (COWART, J., dissenting.) The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that appeals must be taken within 30 days after rendition of the order to be reviewed. (See Rule 9110(b) as to final…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw