Zimmer v. Zimmer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zimmer v. Zimmer

215 So. 2d 104, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4814

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 18, 1968

DocketNo. 2493

StatusPublished

This text of 215 So. 2d 104 (Zimmer v. Zimmer) 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

Zimmer v. Zimmer, 215 So. 2d 104, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4814 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

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]*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