CITY OF GAINESVILLE, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
JAMES WAYNE THOMAS, RESPONDENT
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 the timely deposit of a filing fee under Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(d) is not jurisdictional, even if made after the appeal time limit, provided the clerk accepts the notice without simultaneous payment.
The case involves a certified question regarding the interpretation of Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(d). The District Court of Appeal, First District, he…
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 Appellate Courts cases and more on FLexlaw
By certified question involving a matter of great public interest, we are asked to review an interpretation of Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(d), 32 F.S.A. rendered by the District Court of Appeal, First District. The facts involved in this case are amply set forth in the District Court’s decision, 220 So.2d 644 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1969), and need not be repeated here.
In essence, the District Court held that the deposit of a filing fee under F.A.R. 3.2(d) is not jurisdictional. The jurisdiction of an appellate court vests according to the timeliness of the filing of the notice of appeal, and not according to the timeliness of the deposit of the filing fee. At the time when this decision was rendered by the District Court, it thought itself to be in conflict upon this point with the District Court of Appeal, Second District. Recently, however, the Second District has revised its interpretation of this rule. See Mills v. Avon Park Motor Co., 223 So.2d 802 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1969).
We are of the opinion that the District Court in the instant case has properly interpreted the meaning of F.A.R. 3.2(d). While timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the timely deposit of the required filing fee is not. We do not mean to imply by this that the deposit of the fee is not mandatory for we are of the opinion that it is. However, in circumstances where the clerk of the appropriate court is satisfied to accept a notice of appeal without simultaneously collecting the filing fee, then the subsequent deposit of the fee after the running of the appeal time limit will not affect the jurisdiction of the appellate court.
The decision of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and THORNAL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Williams v. State, 324 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 1975)…cta) observed that Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(d) “ . . . clearly provides that jurisdiction is accomplished by the filing of the notice of appeal in the trial court and payment of the required fee.” Six years later in City of Gainesville v. Thomas, 229 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1969), aff'g., 220 So. 2d 644 (Fla.App. 1st 1969), we receded from this observation by holding that: “While timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional, the timely deposit of the required filing fee is not. We do not [*77] mean to impl…
-
Jerrold Knee v. Smith, 313 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…t that the Clerk’s office actually received the notice of appeal within the 30 day jurisdictional period. We thus accept jurisdiction of this cause under the authority of Thomas v. City of Gainesville, 220 So. 2d 644 (Fla.App.1st, 1969), affirmed at 229 So. 2d 833 (Fla.1969), and Mills v. Avon Park Motor Company, 223 So. 2d 802 (Fla.App.2nd, 1969). We have heard oral argument in this cause and have carefully examined the record on appeal and the briefs submitted by the parties. Upon our consideration thereof…
-
Norman v. Pinellas Cnty., 250 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)…jurisdiction to hear the case. The petition for rehearing is granted, and for the foregoing reasons the petition for certiorari must be, and is, hereby dismissed. PIERCE, C. J., and MANN, J., concur. . Cf. City of Gainesville v. Thomas, Fla.1969, 229 So. 2d 833; Mills v. Avon Park Motor Co., 223 So. 2d 802 (2nd D.C.A. Fla.1969).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Raymond Mills & the Emp'rs' Liab. Assurance Corp. v. Avon Park Motor Co. & Am. Fire & Cas. Co., 223 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Thomas v. The City OF Gainesville, 220 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969)