In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure

CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedDecember 18, 2014
DocketSC14-227
StatusPublished

This text of In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, (Fla. 2014).

Opinion

Supreme Court of Florida ____________

No. SC14-227 ____________

IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE.

[November 6, 2014] CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

The Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee) has filed its regular-

cycle report proposing amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

The regular-cycle report is submitted pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial

Administration 2.140(b). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 2(a), Fla. Const.

BACKGROUND

Consistent with rule 2.140(b), the Committee published its initial proposals,

received comments, and revised and republished some of the proposals before

submitting them to the Court. As required by the rule, the proposed amendments

were also submitted to the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar, which

recommends adoption of the amendments. Following the filing of the

Committee’s report with this Court, the proposals were again published for comment, and several comments were received. The Committee has responded to

the comments. The Court held oral argument on the proposed amendments.

The Committee proposes amendments to the following rules: 9.020

(Definitions); 9.100 (Original Proceedings); 9.110 (Appeal Proceedings to Review

Final Orders of Lower Tribunals and Orders Granting New Trial in Jury and Non-

Jury Cases); 9.130 (Proceedings to Review Non-Final Orders and Specified Final

Orders); 9.140 (Appeal Proceedings in Criminal Cases); 9.141 (Review

Proceedings in Collateral or Post-Conviction Criminal Cases); 9.142 (Procedures

for Review in Death Penalty Cases); 9.145 (Appeal Proceedings in Juvenile

Delinquency Cases); 9.146 (Appeal Proceedings in Juvenile Dependency and

Termination of Parental Rights Cases and Cases Involving Families and Children

in Need of Services); 9.160 (Discretionary Proceedings to Review Decisions of

County Courts); 9.180 (Appeal Proceedings to Review Workers’ Compensation

Cases); 9.190 (Judicial Review of Administrative Action); 9.200 (The Record);

9.210 (Briefs); 9.300 (Motions); 9.310 (Stay Pending Review); 9.320 (Oral

Argument); 9.330 (Rehearing; Clarification; Certification); 9.331 (Determination

of Causes in a District Court of Appeal En Banc); 9.340 (Mandate); 9.350

(Dismissal of Causes); 9.400 (Costs and Attorneys’ Fees); 9.410 (Sanctions); 9.420

(Filing; Service of Copies; Computation of Time); 9.430 (Proceedings by

Indigents); 9.600 (Jurisdiction of Lower Tribunal Pending Review); 9.720

-2- (Mediation Procedures); 9.800 (Uniform Citation System); and 9.900 (Forms).

The Committee also proposes the adoption of a new rule, rule 9.147 (Appeal

Proceedings to Review Final Orders Dismissing Petitions for Judicial Waiver of

Parental Notice of Termination of Pregnancy), the substance of which is not new

but is being moved from rule 9.110(n) and adopted as a separate rule.

With respect to several of the rules, the Committee has submitted optional

proposals as explained below. Having considered the Committee’s report, the

comments, and the Committee’s responses to the comments, and having heard oral

argument, we adopt the majority of the Committee’s proposals and choose between

its optional proposals as to one of the rules. With respect to one proposal, we

decline to adopt the Committee’s language but adopt a revised amendment instead.

And finally, we decline to adopt one of the Committee’s amendment proposals as

explained below.

AMENDMENTS

Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i), Rendition, and 9.110(l),

Premature Appeals, are amended to clarify the relationship between the two rules.

Rule 9.020(i) is amended to eliminate the language providing that postjudgment

motions are abandoned upon the filing of a notice of appeal. The amended rule

will allow an appeal to be held in abeyance until disposition of a postjudgment

motion. Under rule 9.110(l), premature appeals are subject to dismissal. The

-3- amendment adds language recognizing the exception provided in rule 9.020(i) and

recognizing that the lower tribunal retains jurisdiction to render a final order. The

amendment further provides that the court may allow the parties time to obtain a

final order.

New rule 9.147 is not actually new. It is merely a readoption of existing rule

9.110, subdivision (n), as a separate rule. Subdivision (n) is accordingly deleted

from rule 9.110.

Rule 9.100, Original Proceedings, governs the procedure applicable to

original petitions. As it exists currently, subdivision (h) provides as follows:

(h) Order to Show Cause. If the petition demonstrates a preliminary basis for relief, a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause material injury for which there is no adequate remedy by appeal, or that review of final administrative action would not provide an adequate remedy, the court may issue an order directing the respondent to show cause within the time set by the court, why relief should not be granted. In prohibition proceedings such orders shall stay further proceedings in the lower tribunal.

The Committee proposes two optional amendments to this rule. The Committee’s

report states that its proposed changes are in response to a concern that “courts are

avoiding the automatic stay [in prohibition cases] by requiring a response instead

of issuing an order to show cause.” Proposed option 1 would provide that the only

way for a court to request a response to a writ petition is by issuing an order to

show cause. The proposal would add the following sentence to subdivision (h):

“The court shall request a response to a petition only through the issuance of an

-4- order to show cause.” Thus the court’s discretion to request a response in a

prohibition case without staying the proceedings in the lower tribunal would be

eliminated. Proposed option 2 would recognize the court’s discretion to choose

either path, i.e., either issue an order to show cause and stay the proceedings below

(in prohibition cases) or request a response, which would not stay the proceedings.

Option 2 would make explicit that which up to now has been the unwritten but well

understood effect of the language of subdivision (h).

In order to continue to allow courts the discretion to request a response to a

petition for writ of prohibition without bringing the proceedings in the lower

tribunal to a halt, we adopt option 2 as reflected in the appendix.

Rule 9.110(k) governs review of partial final judgments and in pertinent part

provides that “partial final judgments are reviewable either on appeal from the

partial final judgment or on appeal from the final judgment in the entire case.” The

Committee proposes adding the following language to subdivision (k): “A partial

final judgment, other than one that disposes of an entire case as to any party, is one

that disposes of a claim that is completely unrelated to the claims that remain

pending.” We decline to adopt this proposed language and instead look to the case

of Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass’n, 303 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1974), as a guide to

better distinguish those partial final judgments that are immediately appealable

from those that are not. Under Mendez, a partial final judgment is appealable if it

-5- disposes of a “separate and distinct cause of action . . .

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

Related

Diversified Services, Inc. v. Avila
606 So. 2d 364 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Haag v. State
591 So. 2d 614 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1992)
Mendez v. West Flagler Family Association, Inc.
303 So. 2d 1 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1974)
Howard v. McAuley
436 So. 2d 392 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1983)
Thompson v. State
761 So. 2d 324 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2000)
Tubero v. Ellis
469 So. 2d 206 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In Re: Amendments to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-appellate-fla-2014.