NONA MAYNARD, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES THOMAS MAYNARD, 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.
In a family law appeal from a divorce judgment, the appellate court addresses the procedural question of whether a trial court retains jurisdiction to rule on a timely motion to amend the final judgment after an appeal has been filed. The court holds that the trial court does retain such jurisdiction and abates the appeal pending the trial court's disposition of the motion to amend.
A trial court retains jurisdiction to consider and rule on a timely motion to amend a final judgment even after an appeal has been filed. The filing of a notice of appeal does not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction to entertain a procedurally timely motion to amend.
[1] A notice of appeal filed after a final judgment does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to consider a timely filed motion to amend that final judgment.
[2] An appeal from a final judgment should be abated pending the trial court's disposition of a timely filed motion to amend the final judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“While Nona had a valid right to appeal once the final judgment was rendered, James was also procedurally correct in timely moving to amend the final judgment. Notwithstanding Nona's notice of appeal, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to amend.”
Establishes the core holding that a trial court retains jurisdiction over a timely motion to amend despite a pending appeal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Maynard and Nona Maynard's marriage was dissolved by final judgment signed on April 17, 1987, and filed on April 20, 1987. James timely filed a …
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 Motion To Amend Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
James Maynard has moved this court pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.300 to dismiss as premature an appeal filed by his ex-wife Nona from a final order of the trial court dissolving the marriage and equitably distributing marital assets.
The trial court had signed the final judgment on April 17, 1987, and the judgment was filed with the clerk of the circuit court on April 20, 1987.
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(g), James timely filed a motion to amend the final judgment on April 30, 1987.
On May 15, 1987, Nona filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment with this court.
The trial court refused to entertain James’s motion to amend on the ground that it no longer had jurisdiction over the matter in view of Nona’s notice of appeal.
We conclude that Nona’s appeal should abate pending the trial court’s disposition of James’s motion to amend the final judgment. While Nona had a valid right to appeal once the final judgment was rendered, James was also procedurally correct in timely moving to amend the final judgment.1 Notwithstanding Nona’s notice of appeal, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider the motion to amend. See Sky Lake Gardens Recreation, Inc. v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 511 So. 2d 293 (Fla.1987) (where there has been timely motion to amend final judgment, date of rendition of amended final judgment is date of disposition; appeal was therefore timely)-
Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand for the trial court’s disposition of the motion to amend the final judgment.2
. We note that this case does not present a situation where a party files both a post-trial motion and a notice of appeal. Cf. Ferrara v. Belcher Indus., 483 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (trial court was without jurisdiction to rule on defendants’ motion for relief from judgment where defendants filed notice of appeal from final judgment prior to trial court’s hearing its motion for relief from judgment): Brumlik v. Catalyst Inc., 463 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) (filing of notice of appeal prior to disposition of motion for rehearing constituted abandonment of motion for rehearing).
. This result is consistent with Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975); In the Interest of R.N.G., C.A.G., and S.E.G., 496 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Leopard v. State, 489 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simpson v. Simpson, 780 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…n thirty days of the filing of the judgment in the clerk’s office. If he had chosen the latter, this court would have been required to abate the appeal until the lower court disposed of the former wife’s motion for rehearing. See Maynard v. Maynard, 515 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (where former husband filed a motion to amend the final judgment and former wife filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment, the appellate court would abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court to dispose of the…
-
In re Forfeiture OF $104 v. Metro Dade Police Dep't, 578 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…n also applies to the pendency of the other side’s post-trial motion which, as has long been held, the appellant cannot deprive his opponent the ability to pursue. Seiferth v. Seiferth, 121 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); see Maynard v. Maynard, 515 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). . The fact that the author is a late convert to this view, see Codomo, 372 So. 2d at 953 [*729] (Schwartz, J., dissenting), does not detract from the sincerity with which it is now held. . This ruling is in accordance with one…
-
Parsons v. Whitaker Plumbing OF Boca Raton, 730 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…a subsequent fee judgment will not disturb the subject matter of the appeal. If questionable and upon request this court can relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to permit it to amend a judgment, if appropriate. See, e.g., Maynard v. Maynard, 515 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The above does not alter the well settled principle that absent a stay or bond, the filing of a notice of appeal does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction to enforce a final order. FMS Management Sys. Inc. v. IDS Mortgage…
Previewing 3 of 5 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)
- SKY Lake Gardens Rec., Inc. v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 511 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1987)
- Eileen and Charles Ferrara v. Belcher Indus., Inc., 483 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Leopard v. State, 489 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Brumlik v. Catalyst Inc., 463 So. 2d 240 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- In the Interest of R.N.G., 496 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)