GABRIEL PEREZ, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF TAMPA, 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 court held that an unsigned judgment is not appealable because it has not been 'rendered' according to appellate rules.
Appellant attempted to appeal a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict. The record on appeal was filed, but the judgment itself had not been sign…
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 Rendition Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, plaintiff below, brings this-appeal from a judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict in favor of appellee City-of Tampa.
Appellee previously moved to dismiss this appeal. In Perez v. City of Tampa, 181 So.2d 571 (D.C.A.Fla.1966), we denied' the motion to dismiss but noted that the-record-on-appeal had not yet been filed' with this Court.
The record-on-appeal has since been-filed, and an examination of that record: *303reveals that the judgment from which appellant attempts to appeal has not been signed.
Rule 3.2, subd. b, Fla. Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A., provides that appeals shall be commenced within sixty days from the rendition of the final decision, order, judgment or decree appealed. Florida Appellate Rule 1.3 defines “rendition” of a judgment, decision, order or decree means that it has been reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record, or if recording is not required,' then filed.
Accordingly, since the judgment from which the appeal is taken is not signed, it fails to meet the requirements of the Florida Appellate Rules and is not appealable. Cf. Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So.2d 260 (D.C.A.Fla.1965).
The appeal is therefore dismissed ex mero motu.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON and PIERCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Citrus Comm'n v. Griffin, 249 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…nt interpretation or application of “rendition” than that contemplated by Egantoff, supra. Accordingly, this interlocutory appeal is dismissed ex mero motu. PIERCE, C. J., and LILES, J., concur. . See, e. g., Perez v. City of Tampa (Fla.App.1966) 191 So. 2d 302. . (Fla.App.1965) 177 So. 2d 260. See, also, State ex rel. Herring v. Allen (Fla.1966) 189 So. 2d 363, and Braren v. Lawyers’ Realty Abstract Co. of Sarasota (Fla.App.1967) 196 So. 2d 244. . Specifically, see F.A.R. 4.2(b) which provides, “the not…
-
Belton v. ABC Distrib., Inc., 978 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)…atively Closing OJCC File and Dismissing Pending Petitions” was issued in this case on September 21, 2007. This order is unsigned and therefore was not properly rendered under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h). See Perez v. City of Tampa, 191 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). The order also contains no indication that it was mailed to the parties and was not rendered under the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(b)(3). We therefore conclude that this order was not an appealable fin…
Authorities Cited
- Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Gabriel Perez et ux. v. City OF Tampa, 181 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)