ROGER W. GRIFFIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, APPELLEE
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.
Roger Griffis appeals a final administrative order revoking his licenses and imposing fines and restitution. The court dismisses the appeal as untimely, holding that the notice of appeal deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be excused by Griffis's incarceration or failure to receive notice, since he had a statutory duty to maintain his current address with the Department.
The court held that the 30-day limitation period for filing a notice of appeal in administrative proceedings is jurisdictional and cannot be excused. Griffis's failure to maintain his current mailing address with the Department, combined with his statutory duty to do so, means he cannot excuse his late filing based on non-receipt of the order.
[1] The limitations period for filing a notice of appeal of administrative action is jurisdictional.
[2] An untimely filed notice of appeal precludes an appellate court from exercising jurisdiction over the appeal.
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“The limitations period for the filing of a notice of appeal of administrative action is jurisdictional.”
Establishes that the 30-day deadline cannot be waived or extended based on the appellant's circumstances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation issued a final order on January 26, 2010, revoking two of Griffis's licenses, imposing …
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.
Roger Griffis appeals the final administrative order of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (“DBPR”) rendered on January 26, 2010. The order revoked two licenses the Department had previously issued to Griffis, imposed a fine and ordered Griffis to pay restitution to a customer. Dep’t Bus. & Prof'l Regulation v. Griffis, DBPR case no. 2007-040723.
Griffis did not file his notice of appeal until October 15, 2010. He argues that his late filing should be excused because he did not learn of the final order until October, 2010 due to the Department’s failure to deliver a copy of the order to the state correctional facility where he was serving unrelated sentences at the time the order was issued.
The limitations period for the filing of a notice of appeal of administrative action is jurisdictional. Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b); Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Connecticut v. Sealey, 810 So.2d 988, 990 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). When the notice of appeal is not filed within 30 days of rendition, “the untimely filing ... precludes the court from exercising jurisdiction over the appeal.” Pennywell v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Woodard, 62 So.3d 19, 20 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); see also Mekertin v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 869 So.2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). Because an appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider a late-filed appeal, it must dismiss the appeal. Tyler v. Chiles, 718 So.2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
In addition, Griffis’ failure to timely file his notice of appeal cannot be excused due to his incarceration because as a licensee of the Department he had a statutory duty to keep the Department apprised of his current mailing address. See §§ 455.275 & 489.124, Fla. Stat. Having failed to do so, Griffis cannot now complain that the Department failed to provide him with notice of entry of the order and of his time limit for appealing the order. As provided in section 455.275(2), Florida Statutes, “service by regular mail to a licensee’s last known address of record with the department constitutes adequate and sufficient notice to the licensee for any official communication to the licensee by the board or the department except where other service is required pursuant to s. 455.225.” Here, the Department mailed its final order to the last known address of record for Grif-fis and the time for Griffis to file an appeal was not tolled by any requirement that the Department conduct an additional search for his mailing address or whereabouts.
DISMISSED.
THOMAS, ROBERTS, and CLARK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elmouki v. Dep't of Transp., 251 So. 3d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…lack of jurisdiction. See Peltz v. Dist. Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1992) (“The untimely filing of a notice of appeal precludes the appellate court from exercising jurisdiction.”); Griffis v. Dep’t of Bus. & Prof. Reg., 90 So. 3d 320, 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Because an appellate court has no jurisdiction to consider a late-filed appeal, it must dismiss the appeal.”). That said, we recognize the potential confusion caused by the Review Board’s letter being dated the day after…
Authorities Cited
- Thiel C. Frierson v. State, 810 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Vandairy Cleckley v. State, 869 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)
- Pennywell v. Dep't OF Revenue, 62 So. 3d 19 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
- Tyler v. State of Florida-Governor Lawton Chiles & Dep't Of Insurance-Tom Gallagher, 718 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)