JAMES WILLIAM JONES, APPELLANT,
v.
PENINSULA MOTOR CLUB, INC., 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.
This case addresses whether appellant's notice of appeal was timely filed where the document bears two date stamps and the original filing date was crossed out. The court relinquishes jurisdiction to the trial court to determine whether the notice was actually tendered timely, and clarifies that circuit court clerks must accept notices of appeal regardless of whether the filing fee is simultaneously paid.
The court relinquishes jurisdiction to the trial court for 30 days to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant actually tendered the notice of appeal in a timely manner. The trial court must issue findings of fact and conclusions of law, which will then be reviewed by the appellate court to dispose of the pending motions to dismiss.
[1] A notice of appeal timely filed without simultaneous payment of the filing fee vests jurisdiction in the appellate court.
[2] The timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional, while the timely deposit of the required fee is not.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 timely filed without simultaneous payment of the filing fee acts to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. The timely filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the timely deposit of the required fee is not.”
Establishes the foundational rule that timely notice of appeal filing, not payment of the fee, is what creates appellate jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn order was rendered by the lower court on August 25, 1989. Appellant's notice of appeal bears two date stamps: September 25, 1989 (crossed out) and …
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 Clerk Of Court Duties cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellees move to dismiss this appeal arguing that the notice of appeal was untimely. The order sought to be reviewed was rendered August 25, 1989, and the notice of appeal was filed in the lower tribunal on January 18, 1990. This filing date would be untimely. Appellant responds to the motions to dismiss and cites to Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1975), which holds that a notice of appeal timely filed without simultaneous payment of the filing fee acts to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. We have reviewed the original notice of appeal and it shows two date stamps: September 25, 1989 and January 18,1990. The September 25,1989, date has been crossed out. If the notice of appeal was filed on September 25, it would be timely, as the 30th day for filing the notice fell on a Sunday, and the next working day was September 25.
Appellant neither attaches correspondence nor an affidavit to establish that he tendered his notice of appeal in a timely manner and it was wrongly rejected by the clerk of the circuit court. Accordingly, we relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court for 30 days to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether or not appellant tendered the notice of appeal in a timely manner. The trial court shall issue an order which contains findings of fact and conclusions of law and shall file a copy of the order with this court. The adversely affected party will be allowed to file a response in this court within ten days after filing of the circuit court’s order. Upon review of the order of the circuit court and the response, this court will dispose of the pending motions to dismiss.
We write only to observe that this fact situation has become a recurring problem. Some clerks of the circuit courts are rejecting notices of appeal filed without a filing fee. Some clerks are accepting the notices when filed, but upon discovery of the failure to pay the fee, the clerk returns the notice to the appellant with directions to refile the notice with the appropriate fee. These practices are contrary to the rule announced in Williams. A notice of appeal timely filed without simultaneous payment of the filing fee acts to vest jurisdiction in the appellate court. The timely filing of the notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the timely deposit of the required fee is not. The clerks of the circuit courts are directed to accept and file a notice of appeal, with or without the filing fee or verified affidavit of indigency, when it is tendered. The notice is not to be returned to the appellant by the clerk if it is later discovered the fee has not been paid. The sanction for the refusal or inexcusable negligence of an appellant who fails to pay the required filing fee or obtain a certification of indigency lies within the discretion of the appellate court. Williams, 324 So. 2d at 77.
Accordingly, jurisdiction is relinquished to the trial court to conduct proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
ERVIN, ZEHMER and ALLEN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hughes v. State, 565 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ed guilty or nolo without reservation. We reject that suggestion and adhere to our position that it is the ministerial duty of a trial court clerk to accept and promptly file a notice of appeal when tendered. See Jones v. Peninsula Motor Club, Inc., 558 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990); Wemett v. State, 536 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). It has also been proposed that this court should rely on the rule that a pro se pleading is a nullity where the pleader is represented by counsel, see Smith v. State, 444 So.…
-
Millar Elevator Serv. Co. v. McGOWAN, 804 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…al questions can be approached as pure legal matters and that the development of an evi-dentiary record in the lower tribunal is at times necessary for an appellate court to determine its jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jones v. Peninsula Motor Club, Inc., 558 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (relinquishing jurisdiction to circuit court to conduct evidentiary hearing to determine whether appellant tendered notice of appeal in timely manner). . Likewise, all parties in the consolidated trial court proceedings are part…
-
State v. Shanna Gayle Johnson, 139 So. 3d 968 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…gh, 969 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (holding that the clerk of the circuit court had a ministerial duty to accept a petition for filing even if the petition was not accompanied by the payment of filing fees); Jones v. Peninsula Motor Club, Inc., 558 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (holding that the clerk of the circuit court has a ministerial duty to accept a notice of appeal without payment of the filing fee and that the “notice is not to be returned to the appellant”); Wemett v. [*970] State, 536 So. 2d…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)