In Re AMENDMENTS TO the FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

183 So. 3d 245, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 665, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3296, 2014 WL 5714099
CourtSupreme Court of Florida
DecidedNovember 6, 2014
DocketSC14-227
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 183 So. 3d 245 (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, 183 So. 3d 245, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 665, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3296, 2014 WL 5714099 (Fla. 2014).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The Appellate Court Rules Committee (Committee) has filed its regular-cycle re *246 port 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 (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(f), Rendition, and 9.110(f), 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 *247 allow an appeal to be held in abeyance until disposition of a postjudgment motion. Under rule 9.110(Z), premature appeals are subject to dismissal. The .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 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 disposes of a “separate-and■distinct cause of action .. -. which is not interdependent with other pleaded claims.” Id. at 5.' We revise the proposed amendment and adopt it as shown in the appendix. •

*248

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

Related

Melissa Patino v. The State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2024
GEORGE O. SHRADER v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Jeremiah Samuel Cuomo v. State of Florida
257 So. 3d 584 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2018)
Christakis v. Tivoli Terrace, LLC
219 So. 3d 85 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)
Godwin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees
203 So. 3d 924 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Abukasis v. Mtm Finest, Ltd.
199 So. 3d 421 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Paul v. State
188 So. 3d 985 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Hardin v. State
189 So. 3d 233 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Bank of New York Ex Rel. CWMBS, Inc. v. Von Houtman
190 So. 3d 130 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Department of Revenue v. Vanamburg
174 So. 3d 640 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Wallen v. Tyson
174 So. 3d 1058 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Roberto Rivera, M. D. v. Department of Health
177 So. 3d 1 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
W. W. FATHER OF N. S. a child v. Guardian Ad Litem Program and Dept. of Children etc
159 So. 3d 999 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Tyrone Anthony Johnson v. State
154 So. 3d 1184 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 So. 3d 245, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 665, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 3296, 2014 WL 5714099, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amendments-to-the-florida-rules-of-appellate-procedure-fla-2014.