STATE OF FLORIDA EX REL. PARK TOWERS ASSOCIATES, LTD., A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA WITH J. I. KISLAK AND MARTIN FINE AS GENERAL PARTNERS AND ROBERT W. JOHNSON, A LIMITED PARTNER, RELATORS,
v.
THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, AND THE HONORABLE CHARLES A. CARROLL, THOMAS H. BARKDULL, JR., TILLMAN PEARSON, NORMAN HENDRY AND RICHARD H. M. SWANN, RESPECTIVELY CHIEF JUDGE AND JUDGES THEREOF, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant's notice of appeal filed within thirty days of an amended judgment is timely, even if it exceeds thirty days from the original judgment, because a timely motion to amend the judgment suspends the running of the appeal period.
The notice of appeal is timely. A timely motion to amend the judgment that is permitted by the Rules delays the 'rendition' of the judgment for purposes of the thirty-day appeal period, so the judgment is not deemed rendered until the motion to amend is disposed of.
“Where there has been filed in the lower court a timely and proper motion or petition for a new trial, for a rehearing, or other timely post-trial motion or petition permitted by the Rules, the decision, judgment, order or decree shall not be deemed rendered until such motion or petition is disposed of.”
The amended Florida Appellate Rule 1.3 that establishes when judgment is deemed rendered for purposes of the appeal deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn December 6, 1968, the Circuit Court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The trial court had reserved ruling on the admissibility o…
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 Suggestion For Writ Of Prohibition cases and more on FLexlaw
This is a suggestion for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the District Court of Appeal, Third District from hearing an appeal which relators (plaintiffs below) contend is untimely filed.
On December 6, 1968, the Circuit Court entered a final judgment in favor of rela-tors.
At the final hearing, the Trial Court reserved its ruling on the admissibility of a deposition proffered by the Defendant. On December 16, 1968, the defendant moved the Trial Court to amend the judgment so as to rule on the .admissibility of the deposition, the judgment having made no reference to it.
On December 24, 1968, an amended final judgment was rendered which was identical to the first one, but added that the Court had admitted the deposition into evidence and considered it.
The Defendant filed his notice of appeal on January 17, 1969. This was more than thirty days from the rendition of the original final judgment but within thirty days from the amended judgment.
The District Court denied relator’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. This proceeding in prohibition resulted.
Under Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(b), 32 F.S.A. a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days from the rendition of the judgment appealed. “Rendition” is defined by Florida Appellate Rule 1.3. An amendment to this Rule effective April 1, 1966 substituted:
“Where there has been filed in the lower court a timely and proper motion or petition for a new trial, for a rehearing, or other timely post-trial motion or petition permitted by the Rules, the decision, judgment, order or decree shall not be deemed rendered until such motion or petition is' disposed of.” (Emphasis added.)
for:
“Where there has been a timely and proper motion or petition for a new trial, rehearing or reconsideration by the lower court, the decision, judgment, order or decree shall not be deemed rendered until such motion or petition is disposed of.”
The purpose of the amendment was to avoid confusion in determining whether a post-trial pleading is a “motion or petition for a new trial, rehearing or reconsideration.” Under the amendment any post-trial motion permitted by the Rules which is timely filed delays the “rendition” of the judgment.
The motion to amend the final judgment was a “timely post-trial motion” *138which was “permitted by the Rules.” Therefore, final judgment was rendered within thirty days prior to the notice of appeal and the suggestion for prohibition is denied.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and BOYD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
A-1 Truck Rentals, Inc. v. Vilberg, 222 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…erlocutory order. The motion to dismiss is denied. . Larybai’, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, Fla.App.1968,- 208 So. 2d 129. . Ibid. . Cf. State ex rel. Park Towers Associates, Ltd. v. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District, Fla.1969, 221 So. 2d 136. . See Alabama Hotel Co. v. J. L. Mott Iron Works, 86 Fla. 608, 98 So. 825 (1924) ; North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, Fla.1962, 143 So. 2d 849, 851, approving the statement of the law in Barber v. North Shore Hospital, Inc., Fla.App.1961, 133 S…
-
Small v. Small, 313 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1975)…’s appeal be reinstated. It is so ordered. ROBERTS, McCAIN and OVERTON, JJ-, concur. ENGLAND, J., concurs specially with opinion. . Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution. . 274 So. 2d 883. (Fla.1973). . 262 So. 2d 675 (Fla.1972). . 221 So. 2d 136 (FIa.1969). . 137 So. 2d 844 (Fla.App.1962); cert. disch. 150 So. 2d 444 (Fla.1963). . 170 So. 2d 591 (Fla.App.1965). . 136 So. 2d 253 (Fla.App.1962). . Rule 3.2(b), Florida Appellate Rules. . Rule 4.2(b), Florida Appellate Rules. . Rule 1.3,…
-
SKY Lake Gardens Rec., Inc. v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 511 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1987)…end. Disposition was effected by the filing of the amended final judgment. Therefore, the date of rendition was the date of filing of the amended final judgment. State ex rel. Park Towers Associates, Ltd. v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 221 So. 2d 136 (Fla. 1969); Wakulla Wood Products v. Richey, 465 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Duval County School Board v. Rupp, 414 So. 2d 556 (Fla.1st DCA 1982). We therefore conclude that petitioner’s appeal was timely filed and should not have been dismisse…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence