HERBERT C. MARTIN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE EX REL. NANCY MARTIN, 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.
Herbert Martin appealed the Department of Revenue's dismissal of his amended petition for administrative hearing regarding overdue child support reporting. The court reversed, holding that Martin's amended petition was timely filed under Florida's "mailbox rule" for incarcerated litigants, which deems a petition filed when placed in the hands of prison officials.
The amended petition was timely filed under the "mailbox rule." A petition is deemed filed when placed in the hands of prison officials, and a certificate of service dated prior to the expiration of the filing deadline invokes the rule. The DOR erred in dismissing the amended petition as untimely.
[1] A petition is deemed filed when it is placed in the hands of prison officials under the "mailbox rule."
[2] A petition containing a certificate of service dated prior to the expiration for timely filing is sufficient to invoke the "mailbox rule."
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Under the "mailbox rule," as articulated by the Florida Supreme Court, a petition is deemed "filed" when it is placed in the hands of prison officials.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard for determining when an incarcerated litigant's petition is deemed filed for timeliness purposes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn February 2000, the DOR sent Martin notice of its intent to report his overdue child support to consumer reporting agencies. Martin filed a petition…
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 Petition For Administrative Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
STRINGER, Judge.
Herbert C. Martin seeks review of the Department of Revenue’s (“the DOR”) order dismissing his amended petition for administrative hearing. Because the amended petition was timely under the “mailbox rule,” the DOR erred in dismissing it. Accordingly, we reverse.
The facts of this case are taken from the DOR’s final order dismissing Martin’s petition for administrative hearing and the attachments to Martin’s initial brief, as Martin did not order the transmittal of a record on appeal. In February 2000 the DOR sent Martin a notice of report to consumer reporting agencies evincing the DOR’s intent to report Martin’s overdue child support to consumer reporting agencies. Martin filed a petition for administrative hearing, which the DOR denied on May 10, 2000, without prejudice to the filing of an amended petition within twenty days. Martin subsequently filed an amended petition, and the DOR entered a final order dismissing the amended petition, finding that Martin did not file the amended petition within the allotted time.
On appeal, Martin, who is currently incarcerated, argues that his amended petition was timely filed with the DOR. In support of this claim, Martin attached a copy of the amended petition for administrative hearing to his initial brief. The attached amended petition contains a certificate of service dated May 24, 2000, or fourteen days after the denial of the original petition. Martin also attached an original copy of an inmate request reflecting the following notation by prison officials: “mailed letter to Child Support, Dept. Of Revenue (2), on 5-24-2000.” Martin’s attachments to his initial brief establish that his amended petition was timely under the “mailbox rule.”
Under the “mailbox rule,” as articulated by the Florida Supreme Court, a petition is deemed “filed” when it is placed in the hands of prison officials. Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617-18 (Fla.1992). A petition that contains a certificate of service dated prior to the expiration for timely filing is sufficient to invoke the “mailbox rule.” Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600, 601-02 (Fla.2002). In this case the amended petition Martin attached to his initial brief bears a certificate of service of May 24, 2000. This date of filing was within twenty days of the May 10, 2000, final order dismissing Martin’s initial petition. Therefore, the DOR erred in denying Martin’s petition as untimely.
The DOR concedes that the “mailbox rule” applies in this case, but argues that Martin’s failure to provide a record precludes relief under Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979). Apple-gate is inapposite because there is no factual dispute in this case; the issue is whether Martin’s amended petition is timely as a matter of law. See Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 391, 394 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Ronbeck Constr. Co. v. Savanna Club Corp., 592 So. 2d 344, 348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Because Martin has established timely filing of his amended petition, the DOR erred in dismissing his amended petition for administrative hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for an administrative hearing on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT AND SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bulley v. State, 857 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…run). Furthermore, although Bulley alleges that his prison does not keep an outgoing mail log, the dates on his certificates of service alone are sufficient to establish a presumption of timely filing. See Martin v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Martin, 827 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding that a petition that reflects a timely certificate of service date is sufficient to invoke the mailbox rule); Wimbush v. Pasco County Sheriff's Office, 829 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (holding in part that Tho…
-
Scullock v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff David GEE & Deputy Joseph Akos, 133 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…t of dissolution of marriage); Wimbush v. Pasco Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 829 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (rule applied to prisoner’s motion for rehearing directed to dismissal of his replevin action); Martin v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Martin, 827 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (rule applied to prisoner’s petition for administrative hearing in proceeding for nonpayment of child support). Scullock timely filed his lawsuit within the statute of limitations. We therefore reverse the order of dismissa…
-
Fish Tale Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Nice, 106 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…blem. Rather, it could potentially impact this court’s ability to determine whether the circuit court committed error. However, because there is no factual dispute in this case, Applegate is inapposite. See Martin v. Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Martin, 827 So. 2d 367, 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). And although the circuit court’s order does not state its reason for denying Fish Tale’s motion for leave to file a third-party complaint, the Nices’ arguments asserted in opposition to the motion in the circuit court, which…
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
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- State v. Thurston McCLAIN, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1992)
- Ronbeck Constr. Co., Inc. v. Savanna Club Corp. & Savanna Club Realty Inc., 592 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)
- Rittman v. Allstate Ins. Co., 727 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)
- Griffin v. D.R. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2002)