IN RE: ESTATE OF ELLSWORTH C. WARNER
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 when calculating the 30-day statutory deadline for appealing a probate court order to circuit court, Sundays are not excluded from the calculation, and filing a petition for rehearing does not extend the appeal period. The court affirmed dismissal of an appeal filed one day after the statutory deadline expired.
The court held that Sundays are not excluded from the calculation of the 30-day appeal period under section 732.16(2) of the Florida Statutes, and that filing a petition for rehearing does not enlarge the period for taking an appeal unless the court specifically orders such extension. The appeal was therefore untimely and the circuit court properly dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
“In all cases in which any particular number of days ... is allowed . . . the same shall be reckoned exclusive of the first day and inclusive of the last day unless the last day shall fall on Sunday . . .”
Common Law Rule 5 regarding calculation of time periods, which appellants argued should apply but the court found inapplicable to statutory probate appeals
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Probate Court entered an order on April 18, 1947. Appellants filed a petition for rehearing on May 8, 1947, which was denied on May 14, 1947 with …
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 Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
In an opinion treating another phase of this case, filed November 18, 1947, not yet reported, a statement of the pertinent facts will be found. The sole question adjudicated *104in that opinion was, what portion of the record is necessary to review an order of the Circuit Court dismissing an appeal from the probate court, because it was not taken within the time prescribed by law.
It is admitted that the time prescribed by law for taking such appeals is thirty days. The point for determination in the instant case is, when the thirtieth day for taking such appeals falls on Sunday, does the appellate court acquire jurisdiction of a cause when the appeal is taken on a date subsequent to the expiration of the thirty day period?
Appellants contend that this question should be answered, in the affirmative and rely on our interpretations of common law Rule 5, formerly Common Law Rule 63, the essential part, of which is as follows: “In all cases in which any particular number of days ... is allowed . . . the same shall be reckoned exclusive of the first day and inclusive of the last day unless the last day shall fall on Sunday . . . ” ■ We have given due consideration to the cases cited by appellants applying this rule, but we do not think they apply to this case. We have also considered appellants’ contention as to the effect of the four days allowed for filing the petition for rehearing but we do not think that of itself extends the time for taking the appeal.
The salient facts to guide us to a conclusion here are these: The Probate Court entered his order, from which appeal was taken, to the Circuit Court April 18, 1947. Appellants filed their petition for rehearing May 8, 1947. No stay or supersedeas was directed to the petition for rehearing, which was denied May 14, 1947. The notice of appeal directed to the final decree of the probate court, dated April 18th, was entered May 19, 1947. The Circuit Judge granted, the motion to dismiss the appeal on authority of Simmons v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267, 39 So. 77, because it was not taken within thirty days as required by law, and being so, he was without jurisdiction of the appeal.
Section 732.16 (2) Florida Statutes 1941, is the governing law and provides that an appeal to the Circuit Court from an order or judgment of the County Judge in a probate matter-*105must be taken within thirty days from the date on which the order or judgment appealed was filed in the office of the County Judge. The statute gives no criterion for counting the period “within thirty days from the date on which the order or judgment appealed was filed in the office of the County Judge.”
The word “from” as used in the quoted statute may be said to indicate when the appeal period begins to run. It means away from, contact with or proximity to, out of, as released from, etc. So we might in reason hold that within thirty days from the date of the order includes the date the order is filed. With the view to liberality however, we exclude the date the order is filed and hold that the time begins to run the following day, which would be April 19th. In so holding, the time for taking the appeal expired on the 18th day of May, so an appeal taken on the 19th was beyond the time limit and conferred no jurisdiction on the appellate court, there being nothing whatever in the act to show that Sundays and holidays are excluded in continuing the period. We understand the general rule to be that when counting the time within which an appeal must be taken, the day on which the decree was rendered should be excluded and the last day of the appeal period should be included. American Jurisprudence, Section 423. Simmons v. Hann, supra.
We are convinced that appeals like this are governed by the provision of the chancery act as above cited, and that the Common Law Rules have no application. We are also convinced that filing a petition for rehearing does not enlarge the period for taking the appeal unless the court so orders. Gasque v. Ball, 71 Fla. 237, 71 Booth v. Spencer, 145 Fla. 264, 199 So. 256. Section 71 of the Chancery Act in terms provides that “No petition for rehearing shall operate to stay the proceedings unless so ordered by the Court.”
It follows that the order of the Circuit Court dismissing-the appeal must be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
THOMAS, C. J., CHAPMAN and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Redwing Carriers, Inc. v. Carter, 64 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1953)…ertiorari proceeding instituted more than 60 days after the entry of said order. To support their position respondents cite Judson Lumber Company v. Patterson, 68 Fla. 100, 66 So. 727; Gasque v. Ball, 71 Fla. 257, 71 So. 329; In re Warner’s Estate, 160 Fla. 103, 33 So. 2d 728, and Ludman Corporation v. Moyer, Fla., 61 So. 2d 424, which hold, in effect, that under the chancery practice of this state a petition for certiorari which has been filed more than 60 days after the entry of the chancery order sought…
-
In re McRAE'S Estate, 73 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 1954)…if the last day of the appeal period should fall on Sunday or a holiday the filing of the notice of the appeal is timely if it be filed on the thirty-first day. Petitioner relies upon our opinion in the case of In re Warner’s Estate, 160 Fla. 103, 33 So. 2d 728, 730. In that opinion we discussed Section 732.16(2), supra, and held that the appellate court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal because there is “nothing whatever in the act to show that Sundays and holidays are excluded in counting…
Authorities Cited
- Simmons v. Hanne, 50 Fla. 267 (Fla. 1905)
- Booth v. Mrs. M. B. Spencer, 145 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1940)