MILTON E. HOYT, HOYT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., AND FLORIDA HARBOR, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY AND HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY, RESPONDENTS
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.
This case addresses a jurisdictional question regarding whether a notice of appeal filed timely in the lower court but after the 30-day deadline for certiorari review in the appellate court can be treated as a petition for writ of certiorari. The court dismissed the petition as untimely and certified the question to the Florida Supreme Court.
The court dismissed the petition for writ of certiorari as untimely filed, holding that the 30-day deadline for filing a petition for certiorari in the appellate court is jurisdictional and cannot be extended by the filing of a timely notice of appeal in the lower court.
[1] A notice of appeal filed in the lower tribunal within thirty days of an order's rendition is insufficient to invoke appellate court jurisdiction for certiorari review if…
[2] Appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider claims for relief when a petition for writ of certiorari is not filed within the time prescribed by the rules of appellate…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“respondents argue that because no petition or other notice invoking our certiorari jurisdiction was filed with this court within thirty days of the circuit court's order, as required by rules 9.100(b) and (c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claims for relief.”
Establishes the jurisdictional requirement that the petition for certiorari must be filed in the appellate court within 30 days, not merely in the lower court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought certiorari review of a discovery order rendered by the circuit court on May 31, 1988. They filed a notice of appeal in the circuit …
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 Certiorari Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of an order compelling discovery. The order was rendered May 31, 1988, and petitioners originally announced their intention to seek review of the order by filing a notice of appeal in the circuit court June 29, 1988. The notice was thereafter transferred to this court, where it was received July 5, 1988. On July 7 petitioners submitted to this court a petition for writ of certiorari and appendix, along with a motion requesting us to accept the petition as if the proper remedy had been sought ab initio. We originally agreed to petitioners’ motion, treated the notice of appeal as a petition for certiorari, and directed the respondents to file a response to the petition. See Fla. R.App.P. 9.040(c). However, respondents argue that because no petition or other notice invoking our certiorari jurisdiction was filed with this court within thirty days of the circuit court’s order, as required by rules 9.100(b) and (c), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claims for relief.
Within the last few months every other district court of appeal in this state has been called upon to decide this same jurisdictional question, and all have agreed with the position taken by respondents. Massaline v. Carter, 528 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Spector v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 523 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Paul v. City of Miami Beach, 519 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.3d DCA), dismissed, 529 So. 2d 695 (Fla.1988); Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 518 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as untimely filed. As did the court in Johnson, we certify to the Florida Supreme Court the following question of great public importance:
WHEN A PARTY SEEKS APPELLATE REVIEW OF A NON-APPEALABLE ORDER, AND ASSUMING THAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS TIMELY FILED IN THE LOWER TRIBUNAL, MUST THE NOTICE OF APPEAL BE FILED IN THE APPELLATE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER IN ORDER FOR THE APPELLATE COURT TO HAVE JURISDICTION TO TREAT THE NOTICE OF APPEAL AS A PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI?
SCHEB, A.C.J., and FRANK and PARKER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- R.S. Johnson v. Citizens State Bank, 518 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Spector v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 523 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Paul v. City OF Miami Beach, 519 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- AETNA Cas. & Sur. Co. v. CK & K Enters., Inc., 528 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- House v. State, 528 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)