In re Guardianship of Campbell

114 So. 2d 352
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedSeptember 3, 1959
DocketNo. 59-131
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 114 So. 2d 352 (In re Guardianship of Campbell) 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
In re Guardianship of Campbell, 114 So. 2d 352 (Fla. Ct. App. 1959).

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge.

An order of a County Judge of Dade County denied the petition of Daniel Douglas Campbell by his next friend for restoration to the status of a competent person. Upon appeal to this court the guardian of the incompetent, as appellee, moved to dismiss the appeal. The grounds of the motion to dismiss are: 1) subsection 394.22 (15) (f) Fla.Stat., F.S.A.,1 provides that appeals shall lie to the circuit court in such cases, and 2) the appeal was taken after the time limited for such appeals by subsection 394.22(15) (f), supra, had passed. The motion is granted upon the second ground

Article 5, § 5(3), of the Constitution of the State of Florida, F.S.A., provides that jurisdiction shall be in the District Court of Appeal for “[ajppeals from trial courts in each appellate district, and from final orders or decrees of county judge’s courts pertaining to probate matters or to estates and interests of minors and incompetents, * * An order denying restoration of mental competency is a final order pertaining to the estate and interest of an incompetent.

Section 6 of the same article 2 provides that appellate jurisdiction shall be in the circuit court “in all civil and criminal cases arising in the county court, or before county judges’ courts, * * A petition for restoration to mental competency is not a civil case within the meaning of this section. See Lee v. Lang, 140 [354]*354Fla. 782, 192 So. 490; City of Miami v. Gilbert, Fla.App., 1958, 102 So.2d 818.

The above cited subsection of Chapter 394 of the Florida Statutes, F.S.A., is therefore ineffective to confer jurisdiction upon the circuit court. Codomo v. Shaw, Fla., 1958, 99 So.2d 849; Rosenblum v. Boss, Fla.App., 1958, 101 So.2d 596. This same subsection, however, limits the period of time for taking an appeal from an order of the county judge made pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by this subsection to 15 days from the entry of the order. The record before us reveals that the appeal in this case was taken 50 days after the entry of the order. Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(b),- 31 F.S.A., provides a 60 day period of time for.taking an appeal, “unless some other period of time for taking an appeal is specifically provided by statute or these rules.” An appeal from an order of the county judge made pursuant to subsection 394.22(15) (f), supra, comes within the exception stated. Accord, Clark v. City of Orlando, Fla.App., 1959, 109 So.2d 416. Cf. Placid York Co. v. Calvert Hotel Co., Fla.App., 1959, 109 So.2d 604; Fonell v. Williams, 157 Fla. 673, 26 So.2d 800, 801.3 For the purpose of clarity it is pointed out that the proceedings provided under section 394.22 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., are cumulative to all other laws on the restoration of sanity.4

Appeal dismissed.

HORTON, C. J., and CARROLL, CHAS., J., concur.

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

Related

Fuller v. Riley
124 So. 2d 499 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Aronson v. Congregation Temple De Hirsch
123 So. 2d 408 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
Wartman v. Wartman
118 So. 2d 838 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)
In Re Evans
116 So. 2d 783 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
114 So. 2d 352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-guardianship-of-campbell-fladistctapp-1959.