CONRAD F. AND SHIRLEY BOUCHARD, D/B/A BRANDON BEVERAGE CENTER, APPELLANTS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
The notice of appeal herein was filed more than 30 days (but within 35 days) after rendition of the order from which review is sought. Consequently, appellee has moved to dismiss this appeal. Appellants, in their response, rely on Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(d) as extending the 30-day time limit for appeals by five days. Other appellants have relied on this rule to extend the time for filing of the notice of appeal, but to no avail. See Speed v. Fla. Dept. of Legal Affairs, 387 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) and Franchi v. Fla. Dept. of Commerce, etc., 375 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
We write this opinion because we perceive some misconception about the effect of Rule 9.420(d) among some appellate practitioners. The rule provides as follows:
Whenever a party or clerk is required or permitted to do an act within some prescribed time after service of a document, and the document is served by mail, five days shall be added to the prescribed period. The rule provides for the additional five days only when some act is required to be done after service of a document by mail, not when the act is required to be done after rendition or filing of an order or judgment even though a mailing of the document rendered or filed may be involved. Thus, the extra five days does not apply to notices of appeal or motions for rehearing of an appellate decision.
The motion to dismiss as untimely is granted and this appeal is hereby dismissed.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Bell v. U.S.B. Acquisition Co., Inc., 734 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1999)…o be done within some time after service of a document, and not when an act is required to be done after the rendition or filing of an order. See, e.g., Turner v. State, 557 So. 2d 939, 939 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Bouchard v. State, Dep’t of Bus. Reg., 448 So. 2d 1126, 1126-27 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The Fourth District in this case calculated the thirty-day peri [*413] od as beginning from the date the order was “entered and mailed,” thus improperly allowing extra days for mailing. See Stamm, 695 So. 2d at 375 n. 5.…1 / 2
-
Dominguez v. Barakat, 609 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…Best Laundromat, Inc. v. Janis, 508 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wilson v. Clark, 414 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Shields v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 513 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Bouchard v. State Dep’t of Business Regulation, 448 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). by mail.” [emphasis For this reason, this appeal, filed on November 20, 1991, only after the untimely motion for rehearing had been denied on October 24, 1991, was taken more than thirty days after the “unsuspended” rendition o…
-
New Wash. Heights Cmty. Dev. Conf. v. Dep't OF Cmty. Affairs, 515 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…he rendition of the order to be reviewed. First National Bank v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission, 461 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Bouchard v. State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco, 448 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Speed v. Florida Department of Legal Affairs, 387 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). And, although the untimely filing may be attributable to the wrongful act or misconduct of a state functionary, the appellate court is nonetheless…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Franchi v. Fla. Dep't of Commerce, 375 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Speed v. Fla. Dep't of Legal Affairs, 387 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)