Cuadrado v. Maldonado

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Cuadrado v. Maldonado

183 So. 3d 385, 2013 WL 6669950, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19979

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 18, 2013

DocketNo. 3D13-2276

StatusPublished

This text of 183 So. 3d 385 (Cuadrado v. Maldonado) 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

Cuadrado v. Maldonado, 183 So. 3d 385, 2013 WL 6669950, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19979 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

Appellant, Miguel Cuadrado (“Cuadra-do”), appeals the Summary Final Judgment entered against him in a breach of [386]*386contract action. Appellees, Yelitza Maldonado and Rony Blanco, argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Cua-drado’s appeal because it was not timely filed. We agree. The order appealed was rendered on July 31, 2013, and the notice of appeal was filed on September 4, 2013. “A timely notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days in order for this court to have jurisdiction; late filing is a defect no one can correct, not even the court.” Hawks v. Walker, 409 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b) (“Jurisdiction of the court under this rule shall be invoked by filing a notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the lower tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.”). Cuadrado needed to file his notice of appeal by August 30, 2013, based on the prescribed method for computing time. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514. The notice of appeal was untimely filed, leaving this Court with no jurisdiction, and thus, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

Appellant, Miguel Cuadrado (“Cuadra-do”), appeals the Summary Final Judgment entered against him in a breach of [386]*386contract action. Appellees, Yelitza Maldonado and Rony Blanco, argue that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Cua-drado’s appeal because it was not timely filed. We agree. The order appealed was rendered on July 31, 2013, and the notice of appeal was filed on September 4, 2013. “A timely notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days in order for this court to have jurisdiction; late filing is a defect no one can correct, not even the court.” Hawks v. Walker, 409 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); see also Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b) (“Jurisdiction of the court under this rule shall be invoked by filing a notice, accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of the lower tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.”). Cuadrado needed to file his notice of appeal by August 30, 2013, based on the prescribed method for computing time. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.090; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514. The notice of appeal was untimely filed, leaving this Court with no jurisdiction, and thus, the appeal must be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 385, 2013 WL 6669950, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 19979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuadrado-v-maldonado-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack