WINSTON LLOYD, APPELLANT,
v.
BAYA HARRISON, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal discovered after full briefing that it may lack jurisdiction because the trial court had not ruled on appellant's motion for rehearing before the notice of appeal was filed. The court remanded to the trial court to determine whether the motion was timely and to rule on it, then certified seven questions of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court regarding the proper procedure for handling such jurisdictional issues.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal if the motion for rehearing was properly filed and pending when the notice of appeal was filed. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine the timeliness of the motion for rehearing and to rule on it. The notice of appeal will mature and vest jurisdiction in the appellate court only after the trial court disposes of the motion.
[1] A notice of appeal filed before a ruling on a timely post-trial motion is premature and does not vest jurisdiction in the appellate court until the motion is decided.
[2] An appellate court may remand a case to the trial court for a determination of the timeliness of a post-trial motion.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“If that is so, this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the notice of appeal would hang "somewhere in limbo" until such time as the trial court effectuates rendition by ruling on the motion for rehearing.”
Establishes the core jurisdictional problem: appellate court lacks jurisdiction when notice of appeal is filed before trial court rules on pending post-trial motion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Lloyd filed a motion for rehearing on June 25, 1985, but the trial court did not rule on that motion before Lloyd filed his notice of appeal…
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 Premature Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This case had been fully briefed and had proceeded to conference before the court became aware of the possibility that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The record indicates that the trial court did not rule upon the motion for rehearing filed on June 25, 1985 prior to the filing of the notice of appeal. If that is so, this court would not have jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and the notice of appeal would hang “somewhere in limbo” until such time as the trial court effectuates rendition by ruling on the motion for rehearing. See Park v. Bayview Village Condominium Association, 468 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), in which the court relied upon Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla.1975).
However, it is unclear from the record whether the motion for rehearing was timely. Therefore, the case is remanded to the trial court for determination of whether the motion was timely, and for disposition of the motion. Appellant is directed to inform this court within thirty (30) days whether the trial court has ruled on or otherwise disposed of the motion for rehearing, and to supplement the record with any such disposition. When this court receives notice that the trial court has disposed of the motion, the notice of appeal shall mature and vest jurisdiction in this court.
We certify to the Florida Supreme Court, as a matter of great public importance, the following questions:
1. Are the appellate courts of this state bound by what appears to be dictum in Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74, 79-80 (Fla.1975), to the effect that notices of appeal filed after written judgment is filed for recording, but before a post-trial motion is decided, are premature, but may not be dismissed on that ground?
2. If so, does the Williams rule apply even in the case where the post-trial motion was filed by the appellant, or may the appellate court treat such motions as having been abandoned by the action of filing the notice of appeal, Allen v. Town of Largo, 39 So. 2d 549 (Fla.1949)?
3. If the Williams rule would apply in such situations, are the appellate courts required to search the record in each case for evidence that such a post-trial motion has been filed and has not been ruled upon? 4. If the appellate court is required to search the record for undecided post-trial motions, do the parties have an obligation to bring such motions to the attention of the appellate court and/or to ensure that such motions are included in the record on appeal?
5. If the Williams rule places a notice of appeal in a state of “limbo” until the trial court rules upon the post-trial motion(s), may the appellate court limit the duration of this “limbo” by appropriate order, or is the “limbo” of possibly infinite duration?
6. If the appellate courts may not curtail the “limbo” in which the notices of appeal are placed in such circumstances, what procedure should be used to handle those case files until such time as the notices of appeal mature?
7. What procedure should be followed by the appellate courts when the record contains what appears to be a pending post-trial motion, but there is also some indication that the motion may have been untimely?
SHIVERS, ZEHMER and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Forfeiture OF $104 v. Metro Dade Police Dep't, 589 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 1991)…of the motion for rehearing because the notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction. The district court expressly recognized that its holding was in conflict with Leopard v. State, 489 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Lloyd v. Harrison, 489 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hathcock v. State, 492 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); and Park v. Bayview Village Condominium Association, 468 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We find conflict1 and resolve the conflict by approving the principle set forth in…
-
In re Forfeiture OF $104 v. Metro Dade Police Dep't, 578 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…d.2d 443 (1989) (post-trial motions are abandoned when filed simultaneously with notice of appeal). We indicate our disagreement with the cases that hold to the contrary. E.g., Leopard v. State, 489 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Lloyd v. Harrison, 489 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hathcock v. State, 492 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Park v. Bayview Village Condominium Ass’n, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Motion denied.5,6 .The entire passage reads as follows: Thus, a notice of appeal whi…
-
Maddox v. Caminez, 498 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…as pending, she filed a notice of appeal. The trial court subsequently denied the motion for rehearing, citing jurisdictional grounds, inasmuch as appellant had filed a notice of appeal. The jurisdictional issue is controlled by Lloyd v. Harrison, 489 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), wherein we held that this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal until the trial court had ruled on a motion for rehearing which was pending when the notice of appeal was filed. Once the trial court has ruled on the mo…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)
- Allen v. Town of Largo, 39 So.2d 549 (Fla. 1949)
- Pascal v. Pascal, 468 So. 2d 1116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)