MARY MATTHEWS, A/K/A MARY MELVIN, PETITIONER,
v.
STEFAN M. STEIN, P. A., 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 Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for common law certiorari, holding that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review an order denying a motion to consolidate because the order was never reduced to writing, signed, and made a matter of record as required by Florida Appellate Rule 1.8.
No. An order is not rendered, and therefore subject to appellate review, until it has been reduced to writing, signed, and made a matter of record as required by Florida Appellate Rule 1.8. The circuit court therefore lacked jurisdiction to review a non-existent written order.
[1] An appellate court departs from the essential requirements of law when it reviews an order that has not been rendered.
[2] An order is not rendered until it has been reduced to writing, signed, and made a matter of record.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“an order is not rendered until it "has been reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record" as required by Florida Appellate Rule 1.8”
Establishes the legal standard that oral orders, even if corroborated by affidavit, do not constitute rendered orders subject to appellate review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStefan M. Stein filed a complaint against Mary Matthews in county court seeking damages. The county court entered judgment in favor of Matthews. Stein…
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 Written Order Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of common law certiorari petitioner Mary Matthews seeks review of a judgment of the circuit court sitting in its appellate capacity reversing an order of the Hillsborough County Court. After reviewing the record we hold that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law and, therefore, the writ is granted.
Respondent Stefan M. Stein filed a complaint in the county court against petitioner seeking damages. Judgment was entered in favor of petitioner. Respondent subsequently appealed to the circuit court contending that the county court erred in denying his motion to consolidate this case with another case! A thorough search of the record fails to show that a written motion to consolidate was filed in the county court, and more significantly we have not found that an order was entered ruling on the merits of the motion.
Respondent did file an affidavit signed by him with the circuit court in which he averred that a motion to consolidate was orally made to the court and orally denied. On the strength of this affidavit the circuit court entered an order reversing the decision of the county court and directing that the two cases be consolidated and that the parties be afforded a new trial. Petitioner filed this petition for writ of certiorari in this court stating that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to review the order denying the motion to consolidate for the reason that the order had never been rendered. We agree. This court has held in prior cases in which this question was presented that an order is not rendered until it “has been reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record” as required by Florida Appellate Rule 1.8.1 Florida Citrus Commission v. Griffin, 249 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the circuit court is quashed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BOARDMAN, Acting C. J., and RYDER and DANAHY, JJ., concur. . See also the new Rule 9.020(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which defines rendition as “the filing of a signed, written order with the clerk of the lower tribunal.”
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
McDERMOTT v. The City OF Clearwater, 526 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988)…ndered until "such has been reduced to writing, signed and made a matter of record.” Florida Citrus Commission v. Griffin, 249 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (quoting Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)). See also Matthews v. Stein, 362 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). . Section 73.091, Florida Statutes (1987) provides in pertinent part: [T]he petitioner shall pay all reasonable costs of the proceedings in the circuit court, including, but not limited to, a reasonable attorney’s fee....…
-
Lovise C. Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 403 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)…judge was then assigned to hear the case, and his discretion was in no way circumscribed by the reasoning of his predecessor. The comments in 1977 were simply that, and they were totally incompetent as an actual order or judgment. Matthews v. Stein, 362 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The order is REVERSED with instructions to the trial court to enter an order in conformity with the 1966 stipulation of the parties, viz., husband must pay to wife one-half the amount by which the fair market value of the home e…
-
Fla. Mobile Home Relocation Corp. v. City OF S. Daytona, 80 So. 3d 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)…petition within 30 days after the rendition of the order to be reviewed. Fla. R.App. P. 9.100(c)(1). “An order is rendered when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.” Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(e) & (h); Matthews v. Stein, 362 So. 2d 376, 377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). The parties disagree, however, concerning whether FMHRC’s Board’s oral ruling of August 10, 2007, was ultimately rendered and, if so, when the rendition occurred and whether Spreng received whatever notice procedural due pro…
Authorities Cited
- Egantoff v. Herring, 177 So. 2d 260 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)
- Fla. Citrus Comm'n v. Griffin, 249 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)