SHIMP
v.
DHSMV
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 appellate court denied the appellant's motion for rehearing after dismissing his consolidated appeals for failure to file a compliant initial brief and complete appendix despite multiple warnings and notices from the court.
The court denied the motion for rehearing, finding that the appellant received implied actual notice of the order to show cause and failed to demonstrate excusable neglect. The court further found that the appeal was not diligently prosecuted because the appellant had been on notice for eight months that a complete appendix was required, yet as of the date of the order, a compliant brief and complete appendix had not been filed.
[1] An appellant has a duty to submit an appendix with the initial brief containing only evidence considered by the lower tribunal.
[2] Failure to file a compliant brief and appendix, after notice, may result in the dismissal of an appeal.
Previewing 2 of 7 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“notice is of two kinds: actual and constructive. Constructive notice has been defined as notice imputed to a person not having actual notice, for example: such as would be imputed under the recording statutes to persons dealing with property subject to those statutes. Actual notice is also said to be of two kinds: first, express, which includes what might be called direct information and, second, implied, which is said to include notice inferred from the fact that the person had means of knowledge, which it was his duty to use and which he did not sue, or as it is sometimes called implied actual notice.”
Establishes the legal framework for analyzing whether the appellant received sufficient notice of the court's orders, distinguishing between actual and constructive notice.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant consolidated two appeals (25-CA-000417 and 25-CA-000418) in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court's Appellate Division. The court issued…
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 Implied Actual Notice cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court on Appellant's motion for rehearing or reconsideration filed October 9, 2025. On February 12, 2025, the Court entered an order consolidating Case Nos. 25-CA-000417 and 25-CA-000418 and directing the Clerk to "cease filing documents in 25-CA-000418.” On August 7, 2025, the Court entered an order denying Appellant's Motion to Compel Production of Complete Administrative Record by Clerk or to Supplement Record, on the basis of its Order on Appellate Briefing Schedule where it cited the January 29, 2025 order stating "[u]nder Rule 9.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, clerk of the lower tribunal is not required to prepare a record or record index. Appellant will submit with the initial brief an appendix in accordance with rule 9.220 containing only evidence considered by the lower tribunal.” On August 8, 2025, the Court entered an order to show cause in writing, within 15 days, why the petition should not be dismissed for failure to include an appendix in accordance with the rules of appellate procedure. Appellant did not file a response to the Court's order to show cause in either 25-CA-000417 or 25-CA-000418. On September 24, 2025, the Court entered an order dismissing the appeal, stating:
[N]either a compliant initial brief nor appendix has been filed in this case, despite notice given to Appellant that such a filing was necessary in the Court's Order to Show Cause Directed to Appellant (Case No.: 25-CA-000417, Doc. #26). Appellant was forewarned in the Court's Order on Briefing Schedule (Case No.: 25-CA000418, Doc. #7, consolidated herewith) that failure to comply with its terms may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal. (Case No.: 25-CA-000417, Doc. #27).
Counsel for Appellant argues that he did not receive actual notice of the show cause order because the email address "[email protected]" was not served. Counsel for Appellant goes on to say that "[w]hile the [email protected] email address did receive the[] JAWS notifications, the administrative staff member who was chiefly responsible for monitoring that email account, ended their employment with Charles Brady Law shortly before the Orders were entered and replacement staff was undergoing training.” (Case No.: 25-CA-000418, Doc. #18). In the alternative, Counsel for Appellant argues that his failure to respond to the Court's order to show cause constitutes excusable neglect stemming from confusion created by the existence of two case numbers for one case. As the Florida Supreme Court has laid out:
notice is of two kinds: actual and constructive. Constructive notice has been defined as notice imputed to a person not having actual notice, for example: such as would be imputed under the recording statutes to persons dealing with property subject to those statutes. Actual notice is also said to be of two kinds: first, express, which includes what might be called direct information and, second, implied, which is said to include notice inferred from the fact that the person had means of knowledge, which it was his duty to use and which he did not sue, or as it is sometimes called implied actual notice. Constructive notice is a legal inference, while implied notice is an inference of fact, but the same facts may sometimes be used to prove both constructive and implied actual notice.
First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Miami v. Fisher, 60 So. 2d 496, 499 (Fla. 1952). In Wolf v. Peter M. Habashy, P.A., the defendants/appellants were found to have shown excusable neglect where "[t]he prior attorney attested that he had been required to amend or renew his credentials with the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, and he believed the process failed or was incomplete, resulting in his failure to receive the hearing notice." 361 So. 3d 379, 380-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023) (emphasis added). The cases cited in the motion are distinguishable from the present case, in part because Counsel is responsible for his own staff, and in part because he admits that the orders were sent to his office. Counsel has a duty to register his preferred email for service and a duty to supervise his staff in accordance with the Rules of Professionalism. While there has been more than one instance of a document being filed in Case No.: 25-CA-00418, which may have created confusion, Appellant received implied actual notice of the order to show cause. In light of the implied actual notice, the court finds that Appellant has not demonstrated excusable neglect. Counsel for Appellant also argues that he “has diligently prosecuted this appeal, paying the Court's fees and filing his initial brief, reply brief, and two separate motions (Motion to Compel Complete Administrative Record and Motion for Attorneys Fees) demonstrating continued engagement with the appellate process." (Case No.: 25-CA-000418, Doc. #18). Appellant's initial brief was defective as it was not accompanied by a complete appendix. As explained above, Appellant was notified of the need for a complete appendix, and that the Clerk is not responsible for preparing the record, on January 29, 2025 and again on February 12, 2025. (Case No.: 25-CA-000417, Doc. #8). As stated in the Court's August 7, 2025, order denying Appellant's motion to compel:
Appellant [was] reminded that per the Court's Order on Appellate Briefing Schedule (Case No. 25-CA-418, Doc. #7, consolidated herewith) ‘[u]nder Rule 9.190(c)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, clerk of the lower tribunal is not required to prepare a record or record index. Appellant will submit with the initial brief an appendix in accordance with rule 9.220 containing only evidence considered by the lower tribunal.' Additionally, to the extent Appellant argues that the record is incomplete in reference to what it refers to as a transcript anomaly, the court finds no error or omission to correct and also finds that this does not render the record 'incomplete' as contemplated by Rule 9.200.
(Case No.: 25-CA-000417, Doc. #25). When Counsel for Appellant filed the motion for reconsideration in October, Appellant had been on notice for 8 months that a complete appendix was required and that the clerk would not prepare one. As of the date of this Order, a compliant brief and complete appendix have not been filed. In light of this, the Court finds that this appeal has not been diligently prosecuted.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Appellant's Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration is DENIED.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to file a copy of this Order in Case No.: 25-CA-000417 and Case No.: 25-CA-000418.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE THE CASE FILES for Case No.: 25-CA-000417 and Case No.: 25-CA-000418.
ORDERED in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, on December 16, 2025.
Helene L. Daniel, Circuit Judge Copies to:
Charles Patrick Brady 447 3rd Ave N., Suite 408 Saint Petersburg, FL 33701
Kenneth Pope Hillsborough County Attorney's Office 601 E. Kennedy Blvd. Tampa, FL 33601-1110
Additional electronic copies provided through JAWS. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUIT CIVIL DIVISION
COLIN GEORGE SHIMP, Appellant,
V.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY (Code Enforcement), Appellee.
COLIN GEORGE SHIMP, Appellant,
V.
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY (Code Enforcement), Appellee.
Appeal No.: 25-CA-000417 Division: H Code Enf. Case No.: CE24003825
Appeal No.: 25-CA-000418 Code Enf. Case No.: CE24009428
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
This matter is before the Court on its own motion. As of the date of this Order, neither a compliant initial brief nor appendix has been filed in this case, despite notice given to Appellant that such a filing was necessary in the Court's Order to Show Cause Directed to Appellant (Case No.: 25-CA-000417, Doc. #26). Appellant was forewarned in the Court's Order on Briefing Schedule (Case No.: 25-CA000418, Doc. #7, consolidated herewith) that failure to comply with its terms may result in the imposition of sanctions, including dismissal of the appeal.
It is therefore
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal is DISMISSED.
Additionally, as such Appellant's Requests for Oral Argument (Case No.: 25-CA-000417, Docs. #23, 24) and Appellant's Motions for Awarding Attorney Fees (Case No.: 25-CA-000417, Docs. #21, 17) are deemed MOOT.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Hillsborough County, Florida, on 24th day of September 2025.
Helene L. Daniel, Circuit Judge