128 So. 3d 133
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Buckman sued two correctional officers under Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9)(a) for property lost or destroyed after May 4, 2009.
- The trial court entered a final dismissal order on Oct. 21, 2010, without leave to amend.
- The appeal deadline was Nov. 22, 2010, but Buckman mailed his notice of appeal on Nov. 23, 2010.
- Buckman argued the appeal was untimely due to the trial court’s failure to advise he had 30 days to appeal.
- An order to show cause about untimeliness led to dismissal of the appeal on May 26, 2011 (65 So.3d 49).
- Buckman moved under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) on July 21, 2011 seeking relief from judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Buckman is entitled to Rule 1.540(b) relief due to alleged lack of 30‑day appeal advice. | Buckman argues the judgment is voidable for lack of timely appeal advice. | Relief under 1.540(b) requires a grounds enumerated by the rule; lack of notice about appeal time is not one. | No relief; court did not abuse discretion. |
| Whether the inmate mailing rule salvages timeliness of Buckman’s appeal. | Under Thompson, inmate filings are timely if mailed by deadline. | Buckman’s filing failed to meet the deadline despite mailing; not timely under the rule. | Untimely; still affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2000) (timeliness of inmate filings under mailing rule)
- Rogers v. Cyrus, 941 So.2d 1196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (notice of entry issues and timeliness considerations)
- Broimi v. State, 708 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (timeliness and notice related to appeals)
- Woldarsky v. Woldarsky, 243 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (notice and timeliness principles in appeals)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Lane, 76 So.3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (trial court restricted to Rule 1.540 grounds)
- Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So.2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) (limits on relief from judgments under Rule 1.540)