DERRICK G. AMOS, APPELLANT,
v.
ALEXANDER REICH, 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.
The court held that the appeal must be dismissed as untimely because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the order was rendered.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal from a final judgment of foreclosure. Appellee moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing it was untimely filed.…
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
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellant, Derrick G. Amos (“Amos”), appeals from a final judgment of foreclosure. Appellee, Alexander Reich (“Reich”), moves to dismiss the appeal as untimely. We grant the motion to dismiss.
In his motion, Reich argues that this Court is precluded from exercising its jurisdiction over this appeal because the Notice of Appeal was not filed within thirty days of rendition. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i) provides that “[a]n order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.” An order is rendered when all of these three conditions are met. Reich incorrectly asserts that the order on appeal was “rendered” on October 17, 2016. While the trial court signed the written order on October 17, 2016, the order was not filed with the clerk until October 19, 2016. As such, the order on appeal was not rendered until October 19, 2016 — the date the order was filed with the clerk.
Notwithstanding Reieh’s miscalculation of the date of rendition, the motion to dismiss for untimeliness must be granted. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b), an appeal from a final oi'der must be taken within thirty days of rendition of the order appealed. Because the order was rendered on October 19, 2016, the thirty-day period to file the Notice of Appeal fell on November 18, 2016. Amos, however, filed his Notice of Appeal on November 21, 2016. “Under Rule 9.110, the ‘[fjailure to file any notice within the 30-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.’ ” Rice v. Freeman, 939 So.2d 1144, 1145 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (quoting Miami-Dade Cty. v. Peart, 843 So.2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)).
*797Accordingly, the appeal is untimely and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.
DISMISSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 217 So. 3d 1135 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…d.” “Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i) provides that ‘[a]n order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.’ An order is rendered when all of these three conditions are met.” See Amos v. Reich, 208 So. 3d 796, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). On September 28, 2016, the trial court signed the written order denying Watkins’s 3.800 motion, and the order was filed with the clerk on the same date. As such, the order denying Watkins’s motion to correct illegal sentence…
-
State v. Elifet J. Dorce, 225 So. 3d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…on to vacate until March 1, 2016, the date the order was filed with the clerk. Fla. R. Civ. P. 9.020(i) (2016) provides that “[a]n order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.” See e.g. Amos v. Reich, 208 So. 3d 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). Therefore, the DOR’s motion to vacate was timely filed within ten days from the date the child support modification order was rendered.1 Although the Family Law Rule uses the language “date of entry,” this does not contradict FRC…
Authorities Cited
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Peart, 843 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Minucci v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 939 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Rice v. Freeman, 939 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)