DWIGHT ROSS, APPELLANT,
v.
ELAINE ROSS, 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.
Dwight Ross appealed the denial of his motion for rehearing and amendment of a divorce judgment, arguing the trial court erred in finding his motion untimely. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Florida's "mailbox rule" for incarcerated persons, the motion was timely served when delivered to prison officials within 10 days of the judgment.
The motion was timely served. Under Florida's "mailbox rule," documents from incarcerated persons are presumed timely filed or served if they contain a certificate of service showing placement into prison officials' hands on a specific date and would have been timely if received by the court on that date.
[1] A motion for rehearing or amendment of judgment must be served not later than 10 days after the date of filing of the judgment.
[2] The mailbox rule, which presumes timely service and filing of documents from incarcerated persons, applies when the document contains a certificate of service showing it…
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“courts presume a legal document from an incarcerated person was timely served and filed if "it contained a certificate of service showing that the document was placed into the hands of prison officials for mailing on a specific date and if the document would have been timely filed or served had it been received by the court on that date."”
Establishes the standard for determining timeliness of documents from incarcerated parties under the "mailbox rule"
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court filed a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage on December 13, 2010. Dwight Ross, who was incarcerated, delivered a motion for rehe…
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 Amendment Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Dwight Ross, the Former Husband, appeals the final judgment of dissolution of his marriage to Elaine Ross. He argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for rehearing and amendment of judgment as untimely. Because his motion was timely served, we reverse the denial and remand for consideration of the motion on the merits. This disposition renders the remaining issues on appeal moot.
The trial court filed a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and Other Relief on December 13, 2010. The Former Husband, who is incarcerated, provided a motion for rehearing and amendment of judgment to prison officials on December 21, 2010. On January 6, 2011, the trial court denied the Former Husband’s motion as untimely.
Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530 provides that “Motions for new trial and rehearing and amendments of judgments shall be governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530.” Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) specifies that motions for rehearing “shall be served not later than 10 days after ... the date of filing of the judgment.” The same period of time applies for motions to amend the judgment. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(g).
In Florida, courts presume a legal document from an incarcerated person was timely served and filed if “it contained a certificate of service showing that the document was placed into the hands of prison officials for mailing on a specific date and if the document would have been timely filed or served had it been received by the court on that date.” Wimbush v. Pasco Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 829 So.2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324, 326 (Fla.2000)). This “mailbox rule” applies to documents from inmates in both civil and criminal cases. Id. (citing Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So.2d 600 (Fla.2002)).
Here, the Former Husband’s motion was timely served. The Final Judgment was filed December 13, 2010, and the Former Husband’s motion bears a stamp and certificate of service indicating that it was provided to prison officials on December 21, 2010. Accordingly, the motion was timely served and we remand for the trial court to consider it on the merits.
Reversed and remanded.
NORTHCUTT and BLACK, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scullock v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff David GEE & Deputy Joseph Akos, 133 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…ourt and the Florida Supreme Court have applied the rule in a variety of civil contexts. See Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla.2002) (mailbox rule applied to filing of notice of appeal from dismissal of civil rights suit); Ross v. Ross, 93 So. 3d 495, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (applying mailbox rule to service of pro se inmate’s motion for rehearing and for amendment of final judgment of dissolution of marriage); Wimbush v. Pasco Cnty. Sheriff's Office, 829 So. 2d 296, 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (rule…
-
Tedder v. Est. OF Mack Reed Tedder, Sr., 200 So. 3d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…y or processing to agents of the State.” Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla.1992). This same "mailbox rule” date is considered the date of service for the purpose of determining whether a motion for rehearing is timely served. See Ross v. Ross, 93 So. 3d 495, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). . In contrast, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) provides fifteen days for. serving a motion for rehearing from the date of the filing of the judgment in a nonjúry action. The Rules of Civil Procedure apply to all ac…
-
Link v. Secretary, DOC (Lee County) (M.D. Fla. 2020)…A 2002) (citing Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324, 326 (Fla. 2000)). This “mailbox rule” applies to documents from inmates in both civil and criminal cases. Id. (citing Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2002)). Ross v. Ross, 93 So. 3d 495, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012). See also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). A letter to defense counsel, however, is not a legal document that is filed in court, but a document protected by the attorney-client privilege. Therefore, the mailbox ru…
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 761 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 2000)
- Griffin v. D.R. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 2002)
- Wimbush v. Pasco Cnty. Sheriff's Off., 829 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)