BRICKELL BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL FORTE ET AL., 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.
The court held that the time for filing a notice of cross-appeal is not jurisdictional and can be extended by court order.
Appellant moved to dismiss a cross-appeal, arguing the notice was untimely filed and that the rule governing its filing is jurisdictional. The notice …
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 Timeliness Of Appellate Filings cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The appellant has moved to dismiss the cross-appeal on the ground that the notice of cross-appeal was untimely filed. As expressly permitted by order of this court, the notice of cross-appeal was served and filed beyond the 10 day period provided by Fla.R. App.P. 9.110(g). The present motion is based on the contention that this provision is jurisdictional and therefore, of course, not subject to extension in any way. We do not agree.
While this previously undecided question of the proper interpretation of the “new” appellate rules is certainly not free from difficulty, we believe that, since the jurisdiction of the appellate court is invoked by the filing of the initial notice of appeal, Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b), the notice of cross-appeal is properly regarded as no more than a subsequent procedural step in the appellate process. As such, and notwithstanding the hybrid nature of its name, the notice of cross-appeal is much more closely analogous to the cross-assignments of error it was designed to replace, see committee note to Fla.R.App.P. 9.110, than to a notice of appeal. Therefore, just as in the case of assignments and cross-assignments of error under the “old” rules, e. g., Coggan v. Coggan, 161 So. 2d 550 (Fla.2d DCA 1964), the time for its filing is not jurisdictional and may be extended by order of court.1
Motion denied.
. We reach this conclusion notwithstanding the no-doubt inadvertent omission in the new rules of an equivalent to Fla.App. Rule 3.5(d), which specifically so provided.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Arvin Peltz v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 605 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1992)…ime for filing a notice of cross appeal is not jurisdictional and may be extended by the appellate court. Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Club Condominium Ass’n v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Arvin Peltz’s original notice of appeal was clearly untimely. While the notice of cross appeal was filed within ten days of the filing of the notice of appeal, it was not filed within thirty days of the order on exceptions to ge…
-
Brickell BAY Club Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Forte, 397 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…the cause is remanded for the sole purpose of determining the amounts of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded under the provision in question.3 Affirmed in part, reversed in part. . See, Brickell Bay Club Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). . Absent the agreement, the court would have discretion to deny costs to either side in an equitable action like this. Wilhelm v. Adams, 102 Fla. 669, 136 So. 397 (1931); International Center of the Americas, Inc. v. Dade Fashio…
-
The City OF Hialeah v. Martinez, 402 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)…47 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980); Safeco Insurance Company v. Rochow, 384 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 380 So. 2d 503 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); Brickell Bay Condominium Association, Inc. v. Forte, 379 So. 2d 1334 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), and since the City makes no claim of lack of notice or prejudice, we treat Martinez’s brief as sufficient notice to the City that he cross-appeals from the trial court’s ruling. It is clear that we could, and would, under the circ…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Coggan v. Coggan, 161 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)