ETHEL MOORE, A WIDOW, APPELLANT,
v.
JACQUELINE JOSEPH, FORMERLY JACQUELINE ALDERMAN, AND SAMUEL G. ALDERMAN, JR., ALSO KNOWN AS SAMUEL G. ALDERMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS HEIRS OF SAMUEL G. ALDERMAN, DECEASED, APPELLEES
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.
Appellant Moore's appeal was dismissed due to her failure to comply with Florida appellate rules requiring service of her main brief on appellee 40 days before the record on appeal was due, and for failing to timely provide appellees with a copy of the record index. The court emphasized that appellants bear responsibility for ensuring appellate procedures are properly followed.
The appeal was dismissed because appellant violated multiple appellate rules by serving her main brief 62 days late, failing to maintain the record in the lower court during the briefing period as required, and not providing appellees with the required index. Although court officials have ministerial duties, the appellant bears the overall responsibility for perfecting the appeal in compliance with the rules.
“Rule 3.6, subd. j(l), providing the time for performance of acts relating to the record on appeal, and Rule 3.7, subds. a-c, governing the time for serving the briefs on appeal, are so framed as to insure that where the original record is used for appeal purposes the same shall be available in the lower court for reference during the time the briefs are being prepared.”
Establishes the purpose of the appellate timing rules—to ensure the original record remains available in the trial court during briefing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNotice of appeal was filed July 28, 1961. Appellant Moore failed to file and serve her main brief within the prescribed time, not mailing a copy to ap…
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 Rules Of Appellate Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal on three grounds: (1) Failure of appellant to file main brief within the time prescribed by the rules; (2) the untimely filing in this court of the record on appeal ; and (3) failure to provide appellees with a copy of the index to the record on appeal.
Notice of appeal was filed July 28, 1961. Under Florida Appellate Rule 3.6, subd. i(4), 31 F.S.A. it is provided that where the original record is used on the appeal the clerk of the lower court shall furnish to all parties a copy of the index required under Rule 3.6, subd. f(3) as soon as it is prepared. Under Rule 3.6, subd. j the record on appeal is required to be transmitted to the clerk of this court 110 days after *585the notice of appeal is filed. Under Rule 3.7, subd. a, a copy of appellant’s main brief and appendix must be served on ap-pellee at least 40 days before the date upon which the record on appeal is due in the appellate court.
In this case the appellant, without obtaining an extension of the time in which to file her main brief, delayed in mailing a copy thereof to appellee until December 7, 1961, which is 132 days after notice of appeal was filed, hence 62 days after the final date upon which under the rule appellant was required to serve a copy of her brief upon appellees. Meantime, the record on appeal was filed here on October 9, 1961, which is 37 days prior to the date on which it was required to be filed under the mentioned rule. It was not therefore available in the trial court subsequent to the service of appellant’s main brief. A copy of the index was not furnished to appellees as required by the rule.
Rule 3.6, subd. j(l), providing the time for performance of acts relating to the record on appeal, and Rule 3.7, subds. a-c, governing the time for serving the briefs on appeal, are so framed as to insure that where the original record is used for appeal purposes the same shall be available in the lower court for reference during the time the briefs are being prepared. It is to that end that the record on appeal is required to be transmitted to the appellate court “110 days after the notice of appeal has been filed” rather than at any time prior to the expiration of that period. This is not to say that the record on appeal must necessarily remain in the lower court after the parties have served all briefs required or available under the rules of appellate procedure, for no useful purpose would thereafter be served by retaining the record in the lower court. Absent such a situation, however, which does not obtain in this case, the specific of the rule governs.
Notwithstanding the ministerial duties that under the rules of appellate procedure are imposed on court officials, the party suing out the appeal has the overall duty of seeing to it that all things are done in due season to perfect the appeal in the manner prescribed by the rules. Where such ministerial duties are not timely and properly performed in accordance with the rules it will be assumed that the appellant is acquainted therewith; and it becomes the duty of the appellant to take such affirmative action as may be necessary to cause the ministerial acts to be performed.
Appellant has not responded to appellees’ motion to dismiss and did not appear at the time set to orally resist the same. The motion to dismiss this appeal should be and it is hereby granted.
Appeal dismissed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., C. J., and STURGIS and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Latin Am. Benefit Ctr., Inc. v. Raphael Johstoneaux, 257 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…nd properly performed, the appellant is presumed to have knowledge thereof and it becomes his duty to take such affirmative action necessary to cause the ministerial acts to be performed and the record to be corrected. Moore v. Joseph, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 584; Gulf Heating and Refrigeration Company, Inc. v. Iowa Mutual Insurance Company, Fla.1966, 193 So. 2d 4. Having failed in this duty, the appellant herein cannot now contend the failure to provide a complete record for appeal purposes was not of his d…
-
Belint Papp v. State, 249 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…the transcript until the 23d day of March 1971. Clearly, it is the duty of appellant to supervise the orderly progress of his appeal and to insure that all necessary matters are properly completed (Rule 3.6b, F.A.R.), Moore v. Joseph, Fla.App.1962, 137 So. 2d 584; however, where good cause can be shown for a delay in failing to file the record on appeal within the time prescribed, it is within the discretion of the trial court to grant an extension of time, Citizens Casualty Company of New York v. Oaks, Fla.…
-
Kennedy v. State, 261 So. 2d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…m, he could have caused the testimony to have been transcribed and made it part of the record on appeal. For failure in making it part of the record, the appellant herein cannot now contend that it was harmful error. Moore v. Joseph, Fla.App., 1962, 137 So. 2d 584. The appellant contends .that the trial court committed error in hearing the Motion to Suppress at the time of the trial rather than before the commencement of [*863] the trial. The Motion to Suppress did not go to the voluntariness of the out-of-c…