FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MELBOURNE, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD BERG, JR., AND JOLINE BERG, HIS WIFE, 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 appellate court dismissed an appeal because it was filed outside the 60-day time limit. The court found no actions taken by the lower court that would have tolled the appeal period.
No, the notice of appeal was not timely filed. The appeal must be dismissed because it was filed outside the 60-day statutory period.
“From our examination of the record in this case, we note that the final judgment herein was filed on the 28th day of May, 1962, and that the notice of appeal was filed July 30, 1962 and recorded in the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida.”
Establishes the timeline of the lower court's judgment and the filing of the notice of appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff, First National Bank of Melbourne, appealed a final judgment that granted recovery against Howard Berg, Jr., but not his wife, Joline Be…
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 Appeal Period cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff below, First National Bank of Melbourne, a national banking corporation, from a final judgment in which the lower court decreed a recovery against the defendant, Howard Berg, Jr., who was joined as a defendant with his wife, Joline Berg. No recovery was granted against Joline Berg and the appellant assigned as error the fact that the judge’s order did not decree a judgment against Joline Berg.
From our examination of the record in this case, we note that the final judgment herein was filed on the 28th day of May, 1962, and that the notice of appeal was filed July 30, 1962 and recorded in the Public Records of Brevard County, Florida.
We find nothing in the record, such as a petition for rehearing, that would have tolled the requirements that the appeal be taken within 60 days.
We must, therefore, dismiss this appeal.
ALLEN, Acting Chief Judge, and SMITH, J., and WHITE, JOS, S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Kendrick v. Everheart, 390 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 1980)…ll affect him. See In re Brock, 157 Fla. 291, 25 So. 2d 659 (1946); Porter v. Porter, 60 Fla. 407, 53 So. 546 (1910); Spencer v. Spencer, 305 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); In the Interest of R. L. G., 274 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973); Tom v. State, 153 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). Although section 744.301(1), Florida Statutes (1977), names the natural mother of an illegitimate child as its natural guardian, she may transfer her guardianship rights to another person provided it is in the child’s best intere…
-
Crane v. Hayes, 253 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 1971)…97, 150 S.E. 2d 204 (1966). An order of'a court in a sister state granting temporary custody is not res judicata, and a Florida court has a duty on petition for writ of habeas corpus to determine the child’s best interests. Tom v. State ex rel. Tom, 153 So. 2d 334 (Fla.App.2d, 1963); Fox v. Fox, 179 So. 2d 103 (Fla.App.3rd, 1965). An order by a foreign court which is without jurisdiction is not binding. See O’Neal v. O’Neal, 158 So. 2d 586 (Fla.App.3rd, 1963). Accord, Richter v. Harmon, 243 N.C. 373, 90 S.E.…1 / 2
-
Hoyt E. Morris and Viola Morris v. Myron M. Kridel, 179 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…jurisdiction concerning the custody of said child as between the parties hereto.” In light of the Digirogio case, it seems that ordering the parties to take the child out of this jurisdiction is improper. Tom v. State ex rel. Tom, Fla.App. 2, 1963, 153 So. 2d 334, was a custody case before this court, involving a similar fact situation. The husband and wife were residents of North Carolina, who had separated. The custody of their minor children was awarded to the mother, under court order not to remove them…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence