CONGREGATION TEMPLE DE HIRSCH, OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, AND THE SEATTLE FOUNDATION, OF SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, PETITIONERS,
v.
SUSAN JOYCE ARONSON (INDIVIDUALLY), AND SEATTLE-FIRST NATIONAL BANK, AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF ABE ARONSON, RESPONDENTS
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a District Court of Appeal erred in refusing to dismiss an appeal filed outside the statutory 30-day appeal period from a probate order, and that courts lack jurisdiction to extend appeal deadlines regardless of prospective versus retroactive application. The Court affirmed that appeals in probate proceedings must be taken within 60 days, rejecting the lower court's attempt to create a prospective-only rule.
The Court held that courts lack jurisdiction to extend appeal deadlines by any method or reasoning, including prospective application of new legal interpretations. The Court further held that appeals in probate proceedings may be taken at any time within 60 days from the date of rendition of an appealable order, making the District Court's 30-day requirement erroneous.
“Failure to appeal within the time fixed by the Legislature for that purpose deprives the court of jurisdiction to act in any manner except to enter an order of dismissal.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that courts lack discretion to extend appeal deadlines—jurisdictional requirements 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 intelligencePetitioners filed an appeal from a probate order more than 30 days but less than 60 days from the order's rendition. The District Court of Appeal had …
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 Prospective Application Of Judicial Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
This case1 has been certified to us by the District Court of Appeal, Third District, as one which passes upon a question of great public interest.2
Petitioners’ motion before the district court to dismiss an appeal from an order of the county judge in a probate proceeding, because the same was taken more than' 30 days but less than 60 days from the rendition of said order, was denied. A decision of the same district court, announced a short time previously, held that appeals from such orders must be taken within 30 days.3 The reasons assigned by the district court which impelled it to that conclusion were:
“The Wartman case, decided by this court March 23, 1960, was published and made available to the bar generally in the Southern Reporter Advance Opinions dated April 21, 1960. Prior to that date the Bench and Bar of Florida, and properly so, were entitled to rely and act on the basis of the previously accepted construction of the appellate rules and statutes, as applicable to orders and decrees from county judge’s courts in probate matters, for appeals to be taken within 60 days after their rendition. Only after our different construction thereof in the Wart-man case did it become otherwise. *586Therefore, we hold that our construction of the applicable rules and statute to provide for a 30 day appeal period for such appeals, as announced in the Wartman case will not operate retroactively in other cases, but shall operate prospectively from April 21, 1960, the date of the publication of the report of In re Wartman’s Estate, supra. * * * [123 So.2d 410.]
The validity of this holding is questioned here.
While the district court cites and discusses many cases which it says support the conclusion reached by it, we cannot find, in the cited cases, support for the conclusion reached. Failure to appeal within the time fixed by the Legislature for that purpose deprives the court of jurisdiction to act in any manner except to enter an order of dismissal.4 In the Salinger5 and Cortina 6 cases we held squarely that a trial court was without authority to extend the time for appeal. The same rule is clearly applicable to the appellate courts; and, as pointed out in these cited cases, this is so no matter what reason or method is employed in an attempt to do so. We, therefore, conclude that the reasons assigned by the district court for its refusal to dismiss the instant appeal are erroneous. Ordinarily this would require that we quash the decision under review but, inasmuch as we have this day held, in the case of In re Estate of Wartman, Wartman v. Wartman, that appeals in probate proceedings may be taken at any time within 60 days from the date of the rendition of such appealable order, and in view of the holdings of this court that the ultimate question for determination is the correctness of the conclusions reached by the lower court, and not its reasons therefor,7 certiorari must be and the same is hereby denied.
Certiorari discharged.
THOMAS, C. J., and TERRELL, HOB-SON, ROBERTS, THORNAL and O’-CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)…or this Court is the correctness of the district court decision, not its reasons therefor, I consider it appropriate and necessary to examine any alternative legal theories which support the decision below.3 Congregation Temple De Hirsch v. Aronson, 128 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1961). The effect of the majority opinion’s interpretation of the statute is to grant members of medical review committees, and others who testify before or submit recom [*223] mendations to the committees, an unchecked license to defame appli…
-
Echols v. State, 484 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 1985)…s appearing in the record [*577] should be considered which support the trial court’s decision. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(f); §§ 59.04 and 924.33, Fla.Stat. (1981); Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla.1962); Congregation Temple De Hirsch v. Aronson, 128 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1961); In Re Wingo’s Guardianship, 57 So. 2d 883 (Fla.1952); Perkins v. City of Coral Gables, 57 So. 2d 663 (Fla.1952); Wallace v. State, 41 Fla. 547, 26 So. 713 (1899). In mitigation, the trial court found (erroneously) that appellant had no s…
-
Como OIL Co., Inc. v. Celestine O'Loughlin, 466 So. 2d 1061 (Fla. 1985)…is not whether the district court failed to use the correct “magic words,” but whether it erred in reversing the trial court’s directed verdict for the defendant/petitioner on the issue of punitive damages.1 Congregation Temple De Hirsch v. Aronson, 128 So. 2d 585 (Fla.1961). My reading of the evidence persuades me that the district court decision should be approved. In conducting its review of the directed verdict, the district court followed, as should we, the well-established rule that an appellate court…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (19 total)
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Miller v. Miller, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Susco CAR Rental Sys. OF Fla. v. Leonard, 112 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 1959)
- Fay W. Cates & Fid. & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Heffernan, 154 Fla. 422 (Fla. 1944)
- Counne v. Saffan, 87 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 1956)
- Cottages v. Wegman, 57 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1951)
- Rolf Peter Salinger v. Salinger, 100 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1958)
- Wolf v. Cleveland Elec. Co., 58 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1952)
- SUN Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 105 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1958)
- Jaffe v. Endure-A-Life Time Awning Sales, Inc., 98 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 1957)