IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF DANIEL DOUGLAS CAMPBELL, INCOMPETENT
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.
A Florida appellate court dismissed an appeal from a county judge's order denying restoration of mental competency because the appeal was filed 50 days after entry of the order, exceeding the 15-day deadline specified in Florida Statute 394.22(15)(f). The court clarified that while District Courts of Appeal have jurisdiction over such final orders affecting incompetents' interests, the statutory 15-day appeal period is mandatory and supersedes the standard 60-day appellate rule.
The appeal was properly dismissed as untimely. Although the District Court of Appeal has jurisdiction over final orders from county judges pertaining to estates and interests of incompetents, appeals must be filed within 15 days of entry of the order as specified in Florida Statute 394.22(15)(f), not the standard 60-day period. The appeal filed 50 days after entry was barred.
“An order denying restoration of mental competency is a final order pertaining to the estate and interest of an incompetent.”
Establishes that such orders fall within District Court of Appeal jurisdiction under the constitutional provision regarding incompetents' interests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Douglas Campbell, through his next friend, petitioned a Dade County judge for restoration to competent status. The county judge denied the peti…
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 Appellate Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
An order of a County Judge of Dade County denied the petition of Daniel Douglas Campbell by his next friend for restoration to the status of a competent person. Upon appeal to this court the guardian of the incompetent, as appellee, moved to dismiss the appeal. The grounds of the motion to dismiss are: 1) subsection 394.22 (15) (f) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.,1 provides that appeals shall lie to the circuit court in such cases, and 2) the appeal was taken after the time limited for such appeals by subsection 394.22(15) (f), supra, had passed. The motion is granted upon the second ground
Article 5, § 5(3), of the Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., provides that jurisdiction shall be in the District Court of Appeal for “[ajppeals from trial courts in each appellate district, and from final orders or decrees of county judge’s courts pertaining to probate matters or to estates and interests of minors and incompetents, * * An order denying restoration of mental competency is a final order pertaining to the estate and interest of an incompetent.
Section 6 of the same article 2 provides that appellate jurisdiction shall be in the circuit court “in all civil and criminal cases arising in the county court, or before county judges’ courts, * * A petition for restoration to mental competency is not a civil case within the meaning of this section. See Lee v. Lang, 140 *354Fla. 782, 192 So. 490; City of Miami v. Gilbert, Fla.App., 1958, 102 So.2d 818.
The above cited subsection of Chapter 394 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is therefore ineffective to confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court. Codomo v. Shaw, Fla., 1958, 99 So.2d 849; Rosenblum v. Boss, Fla.App., 1958, 101 So.2d 596. This same subsection, however, limits the period of time for taking an appeal from an order of the county judge made pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by this subsection to 15 days from the entry of the order. The record before us reveals that the appeal in this case was taken 50 days after the entry of the order. Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(b),- 31 F.S.A., provides a 60 day period of time for.taking an appeal, “unless some other period of time for taking an appeal is specifically provided by statute or these rules.” An appeal from an order of the county judge made pursuant to subsection 394.22(15) (f), supra, comes within the exception stated. Accord, Clark v. City of Orlando, Fla.App., 1959, 109 So.2d 416. Cf. Placid York Co. v. Calvert Hotel Co., Fla.App., 1959, 109 So.2d 604; Fonell v. Williams, 157 Fla. 673, 26 So.2d 800, 801.3 For the purpose of clarity it is pointed out that the proceedings provided under section 394.22 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., are cumulative to all other laws on the restoration of sanity.4
Appeal dismissed.
HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., 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)…nt on the question of jurisdiction relating to time for appeal in view of section 39.14(2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.,1 Rule 3.2(b) Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., and the holding of this court in the case of In re Campbell’s 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 Appella…
-
In re Est. of George H. Wartman v. Wartman, 118 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…la.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 Campbell’s Guardianship, Fla.App.1959, 114 So. 2d 352, and In re Evans, Fla.App.1960, 116 So. 2d 783. For the reasons set forth in the cited cases we are compelled to hold that § 732.16, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., limits the time for the taking of appeals from the county judge’s courts in probate matters to 3…
-
Susan Joyce Aronson (Individually) v. Congregation Temple de Hirsch, 123 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)…le 4.3, F.A.R. As additional examples, there were the statute for a 15 day appeal period (§ 394.22(15) (f), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) in certain appeals from orders of the county judge relating to incompetents (In re Campbell’s Guardianship, Fla.App. 1959, 114 So. 2d 352); a 10 day appeal period fixed by statute (§ 39.14 (2), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.) as to an order of the juvenile court with respect to the custody of a child (In re Evans, Fla.App.1960, 116 So. 2d 783) ; and a two day appeal period specified by statute (§…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Codomo v. Shaw, 99 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1958)
- Fay W. Cates & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Heffernan, 154 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1944)
- Lee v. Lang, 140 Fla. 782 (Fla. 1939)
- Placid York Co., Inc. v. Calvert Hotel Co., Inc., 109 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- City OF Miami v. Gilbert, 102 So. 2d 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Naster v. Universal DIE Casting Corp., 101 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Olive Branch Williams Fonell v. Honorable Ross Williams, 157 Fla. 673 (Fla. 1946)
- Dixon v. Stone, 38 So.2d 459 (Fla. 1949)
- Clark v. City OF Orlando, 109 So. 2d 416 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)