PLACID YORK CO., INC., APPELLANT,
v.
CALVERT HOTEL COMPANY, INC., 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.
Placid York Co. appealed a judgment against it in a landlord-tenant eviction action brought in Dade County's Civil Court of Record. The court dismissed the appeal as untimely because the notice of appeal was filed on the sixth day after the denial of the motion for new trial, exceeding the strict two-day appeal deadline established by Florida statute for such summary proceedings.
The appeal was not timely and must be dismissed. Section 83.27, Florida Statutes, strictly limits the appeal period to two days after either the entry of judgment or the refusal to grant a motion for new trial, and this deadline was not met.
“At any time within two days after the entry of judgment by the county judge, or, if there be a motion for a new trial, at any time within two days after the refusal to grant such new trial, either party may appeal to the next term of the circuit court of the county wherein the trial is had”
Establishes the strict two-day appeal deadline that governs landlord-tenant proceedings in summary court actions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalvert Hotel Company, as plaintiff-landlord, brought a petition for removal of tenant under Florida law. The Civil Court of Record entered a final ju…
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 Strict Construction Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellee moves to dismiss an appeal from a final judgment of the Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County, Florida, rendered in a statutory landlord and tenant proceeding. The appellee, as plaintiff, brought a petition for removal of tenant under § 83.21, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Summary proceedings for removal of tenant may be brought in the civil court of record by virtue of § 33.14, Fla.Stat., F. S.A., and these proceedings are conducted in accordance with §§ 83.21-83.27, Fla. *605Stat., F.S.A., which latter sections were originally enacted to provide the procedure for removal of tenant in the county judges’ court. See Wiesen v. Schatzberg, 157 Fla. 375, 26 So.2d 62. Final judgment of eviction was entered on September 23rd and a motion for new trial was filed by the defendant-appellant the following day. After hearing, an order denying the motion for new trial was entered on September 29th, and recorded the same day. The notice of appeal to this court1 was filed October 3rd. The question to be determined is whether the appeal was filed in time to be effective.
Section 83.27, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., provides for the filing of a motion for new trial in such proceedings and strictly circumscribes the right of appeal:
“(1) Manner and time of taking.— At any time within two days after the entry of judgment by the county judge, or, if there be a motion for a new trial, at any time within two days after the refusal to grant such new trial, either party may appeal to the next term of the circuit court of the county wherein the trial is had, upon giving a bond, to be approved by the county judge, in such amount as he may fix in his discretion, to indemnify the adverse party for all damages and costs that may accrue to him by reason of the taking of such appeal. Before such appeal shall be granted, the party appealing shall make oath in writing before said judge that said appeal is taken in good faith, and not for delay, and shall first pay all costs incurred in the trial before said judge and in the taking of said appeal.
“(2) Effect of appeal. — No appeal taken shall operate as a supersedeas.”
The appellant contends that the time for taking an appeal from the civil court of record in a landlord and tenant action is governed by § 83.38, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. This section was enacted to provide the procedure for appeal from a county court in removal of tenant cases. A county court for Dade County was created in 1895.2 Subsequently the legislature created a Civil Court of Record in Dade County,3 but gave no jurisdiction over landlord and tenant actions to that court. Thereafter the county court was abolished in Dade County.4 By a legislative act in 1943,5 concurrent jurisdiction with county judges’ courts was conferred upon civil courts of record in statutory landlord and tenant proceedings. Therefore the Civil Court of Record in and for Dade County and the County Judges’ Court of Dade County operate concurrently under the provisions of law made and provided for the county judges’ court. These provisions provide for a summary proceeding and must be strictly construed and must be substantially followed. Jacques v. Wellington Corporation, 133 Fla. 819, 183 So. 22. Section 83.27, supra, provides for an immediate and limited appeal period (two days) in order to assure speedy relief to a landlord against a defaulting tenant. Dade Realty Corporation v. Schoenthal, 149 Fla. 674, 6 So.2d 845. If the statute is harsh, the remedy is with the legislature. We therefore find that the appeal was not timely and it must be and hereby is dismissed. See Wiesen v. Schatzberg, supra.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In the Interest of Ida Glendlyn (9) & Glenn Earl (8) Evans, 116 So. 2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…Guardianship, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 352. We hold the appeal was taken after the time limited for such appeals by subsection (2) of section 39.14, supra, and the appeal must be dismissed. Cf. Placid York Co. v. Calvert Hotel Company, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 604. Rule 1.4, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., provides that from their effective date these rules shall supersede all conflicting rules and statutes, and that all statutes not superseded or in conflict with the rules shall remain in effect as rule…
-
In re Est. of George H. Wartman v. Wartman, 118 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…t are made ineffective by § 6(3) and § 5(3) of Article 5 of the Florida Constitution as amended. They do not treat, however, the problem of the limited appeal period provided in these statutes. In Placid York Co. v. Calvert Hotel Co., Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 604, we held the provision of § 83.27, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., limiting the appeal period in removal of tenant proceedings to be effective, even though that portion of the statute providing for an appeal to the circuit court had been superseded. Cf. In re Ca…
-
Susan Joyce Aronson (Individually) v. Congregation Temple de Hirsch, 123 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)….1960, 116 So. 2d 783) ; and a two day appeal period specified by statute (§ 83.27(1), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) in certain landlord and tenant proceedings in the civil court of record in Dade County (Placid York Co. v. Calvert Hotel Company, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 604). In order for the 30 day appeal period as specified in § 732.16 to be effective as to appeals from county judge’s courts in probate matters it is not necessary that the entire statute in which it was embodied remain valid and useful. As we have se…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dade Realty Corp. v. Schoenthal, 149 Fla. 674 (Fla. 1942)
- Jacques v. Wellington Corp., 133 Fla. 819 (Fla. 1938)
- Naster v. Universal DIE Casting Corp., 101 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Wiesen v. Schatzberg, 157 Fla. 375 (Fla. 1946)