IN THE INTEREST OF E.P., A CHILD. TERRI JOHNSON, PETITIONER,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, RESPONDENT
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 held that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820(b)(3) prevails over Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g) in juvenile cases, meaning a motion for rehearing does not toll the time for appeal.
[1] In cases of conflict between the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure, the rules of juvenile procedure prevail.
[2] A motion for rehearing in a juvenile proceeding does not toll the time for taking an appeal.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final order was entered in a juvenile proceeding, followed by a timely motion for rehearing. The notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days af…
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 Rules Of Juvenile Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have for review the Second District Court of Appeal’s order dismissing Johnson’s appeal for failure to file within thirty days, as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b). The district court, in its order, certified the following question 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 A FINAL ORDER ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING?
In the Interest of E.P., 507 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. The question originates from an apparent conflict between the plain, unambiguous language of the two rules. The trial court entered its final order in this juvenile proceeding on January 30, 1986. On February 11, 1986, petitioner filed a timely motion for rehearing. Following denial of that motion, petitioner filed her notice of appeal in the district court on April 4,1986, more than thirty days after entry of the final judgment. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g), the filing of a motion for rehearing tolls the time for appealing the order. However, Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820(b)(3) specifically states that a motion for rehearing shall not toll the time for the taking of an appeal. With these two rules before it, the second district dismissed the appeal as untimely, holding that the juvenile rule prevailed. The court then certified the question to this Court for resolution.
It is clear from the face of the two rules that they conflict, at least regarding appeals from juvenile proceedings. However, because this is a juvenile case, any conflict must be resolved in favor of the rules of juvenile procedure. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative and approve the order of the second district.
It is so ordered.
EHRLICH, C.J., and OVERTON, McDonald, shaw, barkett, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 685 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 1996)…y the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure are to address appellate concerns, the committee felt that these rules should not automatically supersede other rules. See, e.g., In the Interest of E.P. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 544 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1989). 1996 Amendment. Rule of Judicial Administration 2.135 now mandates that the Rules of Appellate Procedure control in all appellate proceedings. RULE 9.020. DEFINITIONS The following terms have the meanings shown as used in these rules:…1 / 2
-
Griffis v. State, 593 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)…lent on the question, in contrast to Rule 3.850 which expressly provides for rehearing motions. In the absence of clear authorization for a motion for rehearing, the motion did not postpone [*309] rendition of the order. See In the Interest of E.P., 544 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1989); Longo v. Longo, 515 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). It therefore follows that the notice of appeal filed on June 18, 1991, was untimely as to the order of February 27, and this court lacks jurisdiction of this cause. Accordingly, we gra…
-
Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, 780 So. 2d 834 (Fla. 2000)…t-judgment motions, some rules of procedure explicitly provide to the contrary. The subdivision therefore has been qualified to provide that conflicting rules shall control over the general rule stated in the subdivision. See In Re Interest of E.P., 544 So. 2d 1000 (Fla.1989). The subdivision also has been revised to make explicit a qualification of long standing in the deci-sional law, that rendition of non-final orders cannot be postponed by motions directed to them. Not all final orders are subject to postp…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In the Interest of E.P. v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 507 So. 2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)