THOMAS P. CREECH, APPELLANT,
v.
ORLANDO LEASING SYSTEMS AND FLORIDA UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, APPELLEES
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 court affirmed the Unemployment Appeals Commission's dismissal of Creech's appeal as untimely because he filed 71 days after the 20-day deadline, depriving the UAC of jurisdiction.
Late filing of a notice of appeal deprives the Unemployment Appeals Commission of jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
[1] A claimant's failure to file a notice of appeal within the statutory 20-day period deprives the Unemployment Appeals Commission of jurisdiction to consider the appeal.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCreech received an appeals referee's decision on August 18, 1998, disqualifying him from unemployment benefits for work-related misconduct. He was not…
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 Statutory Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
WHATLEY, Judge.
Thomas P. Creech appeals an order of the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission (UAC) dismissing his appeal as untimely. The appeals referee found that Creech was disqualified from receiving benefits because of misconduct connected with work. The referee’s decision was mailed to Creech on August 18, 1998. Creech was notified that the decision would become final within 20 days after the date it was mailed unless he filed an appeal during that period. See § 443.151(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). Thereafter, Creech filed an appeal on November 17, 1998, 71 days late. On February 8, 1999, the UAC ordered the appeals referee to conduct a hearing regarding the timeliness of the appeal. Creech did not attend the hearing. Creech’s father attended the hearing, but his testimony did not establish when Creech received the referee’s decision. The UAC dismissed the appeal on March 22,1999.
We agree that the late filing of the notice of appeal deprived the UAC of jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Leon v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 476 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that appellate court is required to affirm the UAC’s order where the claimant failed to file a timely appeal). Therefore, we affirm the order of the UAC dismissing Creech’s appeal as untimely.
Affirmed.
PARKER, A.C.J., and SEALS, JAMES H., Associate Judge, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…timely perfected within twenty days is subject to dismissal pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 38E 3.006.2 As the appellees correctly point out, there are no good cause exceptions to this dismissal rule. See Creech v. Orlando Leasing Sys., 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Linderman v. K.B. Beach Suites, Ltd. PRT, 751 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Delgado v. Concentrated Chem. Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Where, h…
-
Trisha L. Frederick v. Florida Unemployment Appeals, 834 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…jurisdiction. Fla. Admin. Code R. 60BB-7.006. As the UAC correctly points out, there are no good cause exceptions provided either in the statute or rule. See Espinosa v. Cableoptics, 807 So. 2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Creech v. Orlando Leasing Sys., 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). However, “in certain individual cases based on considerations of fairness and due process,” appellate courts have carved out exceptions to the dismissal rule. Applegate v. National Health Care Affiliates, Inc., 667 So. 2d 332, 33…
-
Osiel Guerrero v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n & Unicity Imports Corp., 855 So. 2d 266 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…ys subjects a claim to dismissal under Florida Administrative Code Rule 60BB-7.006. There are no good cause exceptions to this dismissal rule. See Espinosa v. Cableoptics, Inc., 807 So. 2d 195, 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Creech v. Orlando Leasing Sys., 765 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Linderman v. K.B. Beach Suites, Ltd. PTR, 751 So. 2d 1262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Delgado v. Concentrated Chem. Co., 644 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Florida State University v. Jenkins, 323 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). Where, h…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- March v. State, 476 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)