Zimmer v. Zimmer
215 So. 2d 104, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4814
Opinion
ORDER
It appears that appellant has grossly failed to comply with the Florida Appellate Rules in the following particulars:
(a) She has failed to pay- a filing fee as required by F.A.R. 3.2(a), 32 F.S.A. The time for paying such fee and filing a proper notice of appeal has expired. See State ex rel. Diamond Berk Insurance Agency v. Carroll, Fla. 1958, 102 So.2d 129.
[105] (b) She has erroneously filed a consolidated notice of appeal from two decrees rather than separate notices. See Carroll v. State, Fla.App.1964, 171 So.2d 196.
(c) In addition, appellant has failed to timely file or cause to be filed assignments of error as required by F.A.R. 3.5(a); the record on appeal as required by F.A.R. 3.6; nor has she caused a copy of her brief to be served as provided by F.A.R. 3.7(a).
Because of paragraph (a) above, this court is without jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed ex mero motu. State ex rel. Diamond Berk Insurance Agency v. Carroll, supra; Counne v. Saffan, Fla.1956, 87 So.2d 586, 587; and Donin v. Goss, Fla.1956, 69 So.2d 316.
It is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Zimmer v. Zimmer, 215 So. 2d 104, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4814 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).
215 So. 2d 104 (Zimmer v. Zimmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Donin v. Goss
69 So. 2d 316 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1954)
State Ex Rel. Diamond Berk Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Carroll
102 So. 2d 129 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1958)
Counne v. Saffan
87 So. 2d 586 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1956)
Carroll v. State
171 So. 2d 196 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1964)