Sembach v. Miller

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sembach v. Miller

120 So. 3d 669, 2013 WL 4860103, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14566

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-4004

StatusPublished

This text of 120 So. 3d 669 (Sembach v. Miller) 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

Sembach v. Miller, 120 So. 3d 669, 2013 WL 4860103, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14566 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This Court’s order, dated August 31, 2012, denying Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, is withdrawn. Upon review of the record on appeal, which this Court received October 1, 2012, more than a month after the denial, the court determines Ap-pellee’s motion was improvidently denied.

The record contains the lower court’s Final Judgment: signed July 12, 2012, stamped filed by the clerk of the lower court July 13, 2012. The lower court’s docket report confirms the same. Appellant’s clock thus began ticking on July 13, 2012 — when the signed, written order was filed with and by the clerk. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(i). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on August 20, 2012 — a week beyond his thirty-day deadline. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and Appellant’s appeal is DISMISSED. The order of the trial court stands. “The [Appellee’s] vehicle should be returned forthwith.”

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This Court’s order, dated August 31, 2012, denying Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss, is withdrawn. Upon review of the record on appeal, which this Court received October 1, 2012, more than a month after the denial, the court determines Ap-pellee’s motion was improvidently denied.

The record contains the lower court’s Final Judgment: signed July 12, 2012, stamped filed by the clerk of the lower court July 13, 2012. The lower court’s docket report confirms the same. Appellant’s clock thus began ticking on July 13, 2012 — when the signed, written order was filed with and by the clerk. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(i). Appellant filed his notice of appeal on August 20, 2012 — a week beyond his thirty-day deadline. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b). Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and Appellant’s appeal is DISMISSED. The order of the trial court stands. “The [Appellee’s] vehicle should be returned forthwith.”

VAN NORTWICK, CLARK, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 So. 3d 669, 2013 WL 4860103, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 14566, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sembach-v-miller-fladistctapp-2013.