MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, PETITIONER,
v.
GUY E. PEART AND LYNETT PEART, RESPONDENT
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.
Miami-Dade County petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent the circuit court appellate division from hearing an appeal that was filed one day late. The court granted the petition, holding that the 30-day deadline for filing notices of appeal from administrative decisions is jurisdictional and cannot be extended.
The notice of appeal was untimely under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(c). Failure to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect, and the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
[1] A notice of appeal filed 31 days after an administrative hearing officer's decision is untimely under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(c).
[2] The failure to file a notice of appeal within the 30-day time limit prescribed by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(c) constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional…
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“[f]ailure to file any notice within the 30-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.”
Establishes that the 30-day deadline is jurisdictional and cannot be waived or extended
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn May 13, 2002, an administrative hearing officer decided that respondents had illegally maintained a commercial vehicle. Respondents filed their 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 Jurisdictional Defect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for writ of prohibition which seeks to prevent the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court Appellate Division from considering an appeal from a decision of an administrative hearing officer. Petitioner alleges that respondents failed to timely file a notice of appeal within the 30-day time limit prescribed in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(c). We agree and grant prohibition.
On May 13, 2002, an administrative hearing officer rendered a decision finding that respondents had illegally maintained a commercial vehicle. Respondents filed their notice of appeal in the circuit court on June 13, 2002. Because this notice was filed 31 days after the hearing officer rendered her decision (one day late), the County moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The circuit court, via a clerk’s order, denied the County’s motion without explanation.
We find that respondents’ notice of appeal was untimely under Rule 9.110(c). See Crapp v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm’n, 753 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (finding that an appeal from a lower administrative tribunal was untimely where the notice of appeal was filed 2 days late); Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982) (finding that a notice of appeal filed two days late was untimely); State Dept. of Pollution Control v. Sebring Park Properties, Inc., 317 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) (finding untimely a notice of appeal that was filed one day late).
Under Rule 9.110, the “[f]ailure to file any notice within the 30-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.” First Nat’l Bank in Fort Myers v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 461 So. 2d 208, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Thus, the lower court should have dismissed Respondents’ appeal. Id.; see also Crapp, 753 So. 2d at 787 (“[a]n appellate court cannot exercise jurisdiction over a cause where a notice of appeal has not been timely filed”); Hawks, 409 So. 2d at 525 (“late filing is a defect no one can correct, not even the court”).
Because the circuit court did not dismiss Respondents’ appeal as it should have, this court may exercise its prohibition power to prevent the lower court from exercising jurisdiction in this case. See Goodwin v. State, 826 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Peltz v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865 (Fla.1992).
Prohibition granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (30 total)
-
David M. Dresdner, M.D., P.A. v. The Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co., 972 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…court to have jurisdiction. See Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). “Under Rule 9.110, the ‘[f]ailure to file any notice within the 30-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.’ ” Miami-Dade County v. Peart, 843 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (alteration in original) (quoting First Nat’l Bank in Fort Myers v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 461 So. 2d 208, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)). A review of the relevant rules of court also requires us to consider whether the…
-
City OF Palm BAY & City of Palm Bay Code v. Palm BAY Greens, LLC, 969 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…erly exercising appellate jurisdiction, the issue is whether the Board’s order was subject to a motion for rehearing and, if so, whether the Landowner’s motion for rehearing tolled the time in which to file an appeal. See Miami-Dade County v. Peart, 843 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (under Rule 9.110 failure to file notice of appeal within 30-day period constitutes “irremediable jurisdictional defect”). If the Landowner’s motion for rehearing was authorized, the Landowner’s certiorari petition was timely…1 / 2
-
Rice v. Freeman, 939 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…ent.” However this notice did not timely invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court. “Under Rule 9.110, the ‘[flailure to file any notice within the 30-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.’ ” Miami-Dade County v. Peart, 843 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (quoting First Nat’l Bank in Fort Myers v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 461 So. 2d 208, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)); see Crapp v. Criminal Justice Standards & Training Comm’n, 753 So. 2d 787, 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (find…
Previewing 3 of 30 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Universal Dev. Corp. & USF & G v. Lavine, 461 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Arvin Peltz v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 605 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 1992)
- Hawks v. Walker, 409 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Goodwin v. State, 826 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- State of Fla. Dep't OF Pollution Control v. Sebring Park Props., Inc., 317 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Dep't OF Natural Res. of the State of Fla. v. The Cir. Court OF the Twelfth Jud. Cir. & the Honorable Evelyn Gobbie, 317 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Crapp v. Crim. Just. Standards & Training Comm'n, 753 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- McINTYRE v. State, 753 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)