TAMERA Z. FLETCHER, ET AL.
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, ETC.
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.
An appeal of an amended final judgment is limited to reviewing only the amended portions of that judgment and does not call up for review errors in the original judgment. When an appellant challenges only errors in the original judgment through an appeal of an amended judgment, the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
[1] An appeal of an amended final judgment is limited in scope to review of the amended portions of that judgment and does not permit review of errors in the original judgmen…
[2] When an appellant appeals an amended judgment but challenges only errors contained in the original judgment, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review those errors…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is true that a party may appeal an amended judgment that makes a material change in the original judgment, but even then, the appeal is limited to the amended portions of the judgment and does not call up for review errors in the original.”
Establishes the fundamental rule that appellate jurisdiction over an amended judgment is strictly limited to the amendments made.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFletcher was a defendant in a foreclosure action. The trial court issued a Final Judgment of Foreclosure on July 16, 2024, and an Amended Final Judgme…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed December 10, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1497 Lower Tribunal No. 22-CA-83-K ________________
Tamera Z. Fletcher, et al., Appellants,
vs.
Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, etc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge.
Michael Garcia, P.A., and Michael Garcia (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellants.
Vose Law Firm LLP, Gretchen R.H. Vose and Wade C. Vose (Winter Park), for appellee.
Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ, and LINDSEY, JJ.
LINDSEY, J.
Appellants, Tamera Z. Fletcher and Alexander C. Fletcher (collectively “Fletcher”), Defendants below, appeal the trial court’s July 25, 2024, Agreed Amended Final Judgment of Foreclosure (the “Amended Final Judgment”). On November 13, 2025, this Court issued an Order directing Fletcher to show cause as to why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction (the “Order to Show Cause”). The Order to Show Cause cited to DeGale v. Krongold, Bass & Todd, 773 So. 2d 630, 632–33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (dismissing appeal from amended order as untimely where issue on appeal was “directed solely at alleged errors contained in the original judgment and order”). Fletcher’s November 24, 2025, Response to the Order to Show Cause (“Fletcher’s Response”) does not address the jurisdictional issue in DeGale. Instead, Fletcher’s Response solely argues that the Amended Final Judgment materially changed the trial court’s July 16, 2024, Final Judgment of Foreclosure (the “Original Final Judgment”), and therefore, the period to file the Appeal on the Amended Final Judgment began to run on July 25, 2024, not on July 16, 2024.1
4 appellant only challenged rulings in the original order and the amended order did not “revive” these portion of the original order). As such, for our purposes the dispositive jurisdictional issue is whether Fletcher’s appeal of the Amended Final Judgment is limited to the amended portions of that Judgment. It is not. Fletcher’s appeal calls up for review alleged errors in the Original Final Judgment. Here, the Amended Final Judgment mirrors the Original Final Judgment in all respects, except for removing an additional property from the list of properties to be sold at the judicial sale. Yet Fletcher’s challenge on appeal of the Amended Final Judgment is not based on the additional property’s removal. Instead, Fletcher’s challenge is directed solely at alleged errors contained in the Original Final Judgment, specifically, the January 30, 2024, summary judgment order finding Fletcher’s affirmative defenses were impermissible. Cf. Caldwell, 980 So. 2d at 1229; Dawson, 300 So. 3d at 251. Fletcher’s Response does not address this jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See DeGale, 773 So. 2d at 632–33; Sitaram, 325 So. 3d at 920–21. Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Mosley, 900 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 2004)
- Caldwell v. Wal-Mart Stores, 980 So. 2d 1226 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- DeGALE v. Krongold, 773 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Dawson v. Hernandez, 300 So. 3d 248 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)
- Sitaram v. Nanda Bibi Alley, 325 So. 3d 919 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)