Anthony v. Wasserman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anthony v. Wasserman

531 So. 2d 1050, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2297, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4453

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 7, 1988

DocketNo. 88-1114

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 531 So. 2d 1050 (Anthony v. Wasserman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anthony v. Wasserman, 531 So. 2d 1050, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2297, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4453 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

FRANK, Judge.

The appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820 requires an appeal from a final order in a custody proceeding to be filed within thirty days following the rendition of the order and that the appeal time is not tolled by a motion for rehearing. See In the Interest of E.P., 507 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

The appellant contends that the notice of appeal was timely because the civil, not the juvenile rules apply, and consistent with rule 9.020(g) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal was timely within the enlarged period. We disagree. The appellant erroneously attaches a determinative significance to the fact that an administrative order transferred this proceeding from the circuit court’s juvenile division to the civil division. The transfer to the civil division did not change the litigation’s character — it began as and retained the status of a juvenile dependency proceeding governed by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.

Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss. We certify, however, as occurred in In the Interest ofE.P., the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

DOES FLORIDA RULE OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 8.820(b)(3) RESCIND FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.020(g) THEREBY LIMITING THE TIME FOR TAKING AN APPEAL TO THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF A FINAL OR[1051]*1051DER ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING?

CAMPBELL, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

FRANK, Judge.

The appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal on the ground that Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.820 requires an appeal from a final order in a custody proceeding to be filed within thirty days following the rendition of the order and that the appeal time is not tolled by a motion for rehearing. See In the Interest of E.P., 507 So.2d 705 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

The appellant contends that the notice of appeal was timely because the civil, not the juvenile rules apply, and consistent with rule 9.020(g) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, the notice of appeal was timely within the enlarged period. We disagree. The appellant erroneously attaches a determinative significance to the fact that an administrative order transferred this proceeding from the circuit court’s juvenile division to the civil division. The transfer to the civil division did not change the litigation’s character — it began as and retained the status of a juvenile dependency proceeding governed by the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.

Accordingly, we grant the motion to dismiss. We certify, however, as occurred in In the Interest ofE.P., the following question to the Florida Supreme Court:

DOES FLORIDA RULE OF JUVENILE PROCEDURE 8.820(b)(3) RESCIND FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.020(g) THEREBY LIMITING THE TIME FOR TAKING AN APPEAL TO THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF THE FINAL JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF THIRTY DAYS AFTER RENDITION OF A FINAL OR[1051]*1051DER ON THE MOTION FOR REHEARING?

CAMPBELL, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 So. 2d 1050, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 2297, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 4453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anthony-v-wasserman-fladistctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack