183 So. 3d 245
Fla.2014Background
- Florida Supreme Court adopts amendments proposed by the Appellate Court Rules Committee to the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, with an effective date of January 1, 2015.
- The Committee's amendments cover numerous rules, including 9.020, 9.100, 9.110, 9.130, 9.140, 9.141, 9.142, 9.145, 9.146, 9.160, 9.180, 9.190, 9.200, 9.210, 9.300, 9.310, 9.320, 9.330, 9.331, 9.340, 9.350, 9.400, 9.410, 9.420, 9.430, 9.600, 9.720, 9.800, and 9.900, plus a new rule 9.147.
- The Court adopts some optional proposals, rejects others, and revises certain provisions (e.g., 9.100(h) stay vs. response, 9.110(k) partial final judgments, and 9.420 inmate filing), after considering comments and arguments.
- Option 2 for 9.100(h) is adopted to preserve the court’s discretion to require a response or stay in prohibition cases, clarifying sequencing and stay effects.
- The amendment to 9.110(k) adopts a Mendez-based approach to distinguishing immediately appealable partial final judgments from those that are not.
- The amendments also address stays, enforcement, and administrative details, including inmate filing presumptions under 9.420.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation of 9.020(i) Rendition and 9.110(l) Premature Appeals | Committee proposed restrictive stay/response path in prohibition cases. | Court should retain discretion to choose path (response or stay) as current practice implied. | Option 2 adopted; retain discretion with explicit stay/response framework. |
| Immediate appealability of partial final judgments under 9.110(k) | Proposed new definitional language would simplify appealability. | Follow Mendez v. West Flagler to distinguish separate and distinct causes. | Adopted Mendez-based standard for partial final judgments. |
| Stay pending review for money judgments under 9.310(b) | Committee proposals would alter automatic stay conditions. | Maintain current rule structure pending review without forced changes. | Declined to adopt Committee alternatives; keep current rule framework. |
| Adoption of new rule 9.147 and relocation of 9.110(n) | Move existing provision into its own rule for clarity. | Preserve existing structure with revised placement. | Adopted as 9.147; 9.110(n) moved accordingly. |
| Inmate filing presumption under 9.420 | Clarify filing date when inmate uses institutional legal mail system. | Maintain existing certificate-based or system-based presumptions depending on system availability. | Adopted revised 9.420(a)(2) for legal mail system presumptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendez v. West Flagler Family Ass'n, 303 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1974) (guide to distinguish appealable partial final judgments)
- Thompson v. State, 761 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2000) (mailbox rule alignment referenced in 9.420 discussion)
- Haag v. State, 591 So.2d 614 (Fla. 1992) (federal mailbox rule adoption context)
- Tubero v. Ellis, 469 So.2d 206 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (discussed in context of nonfinal order review timing)