DANIEL E. RHOADES, APPELLANT,
v.
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 Second District Court of Appeal addressed whether an amended notice of appeal could bring Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center into an appeal where it was not included in the original notice. The court held that while the amended notice did not strictly comply with appellate rules, the defect was neither jurisdictional nor prejudicial, and the appeal would be allowed to proceed as a separate notice with proper filing fees paid.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that while the amended notice did not comply with Rule 9.110(h), the defect was not jurisdictional or prejudicial. The amended notice would be treated as a separate notice of appeal, and both appeals would proceed as if consolidated once proper filing fees were paid.
[1] An amended notice of appeal may not be used to include a separate judgment against a different defendant if the time for filing a notice of appeal from that judgment has…
[2] A defect in a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional if no party was misled and no prejudice resulted.
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 intelligence“a notice of appeal may not be amended to include a separate judgment against a different defendant by filing an amended notice of appeal after the time for filing a notice of appeal from that judgment had expired”
The court distinguished Cobb v. St. Joseph's Hospital, which addressed the impermissible amendment of a notice after the appeal deadline had passed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an order dismissing the complaint against certain defendants on August 30, 1988. Appellant filed a notice of appeal on Septembe…
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 Jurisdictional Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO AP-PELLEE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
PER CURIAM.
Appellee Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center moves to be dismissed from this appeal on the ground that it was not included in the original notice of appeal and that an amended notice of appeal including Southwest was not sufficient to bring it into the appeal. The relevant chronology is as follows:
1. Order dismissing complaint against certain other defendants — August 30, 1988
2. Notice of Appeal — September 7, 1988
3. Order dismissing complaint against defendant Southwest and certain other defendants not included in the first order — October 28, 1988
4. Amended notice of Appeal directed to October 28, 1988 order — November 18, 1988
In Cobb v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, et al., Case No. 88-02739 (Fla. 2d DCA March 29,1989), this court held that a notice of appeal may not be amended to include a separate judgment against a different defendant by filing an amended notice of appeal after the time for filing a notice of appeal from that judgment had expired. In the instant case, when the amended notice of appeal was filed, the time for filing a notice of appeal from the new judgment had not expired. Neither do we find Norm Burg Construction v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 514 So. 2d 1102 (Fla.1987) applicable here because there was no amended notice of appeal referring to the new judgment in that case.
Clearly, appellant could have filed a separate notice of appeal from the October 28, 1988 order at the time the amended notice of appeal was filed. Under these circumstances, no one was misled that the judgment against the medical center became final, and we perceive no prejudice to appel-lee Southwest. In short, we find that the defect was not prejudicial or jurisdictional. However, appellant does not come within the purview of Rule 9.110(h), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that “(m)ultiple final orders may be reviewed by a single notice, if the notice is timely filed as to each such order.”
Accordingly, we treat the amended notice of appeal as a separate notice. Appellant shall forthwith pay the appropriate filing fees to the clerks of the circuit court and of this court. Both appeals will proceed in the above styled case already docketed as if consolidated. The motion to dismiss is denied.
RYDER, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Norm Burg Constr. Corp. v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 514 So. 2d 1102 (Fla. 1987)