256 So. 3d 1218
Fla.2018Background
- The Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee submitted regular-cycle proposals to amend multiple Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure; the Board of Governors approved them and the Committee solicited and received comments and revised some proposals.
- The Florida Supreme Court published the proposals, received additional comments (including from chief judges of the 2nd and 16th Circuits), the Committee replied, and the Court held oral argument.
- The Court adopted most proposed amendments (effective Jan. 1, 2019) with revisions, but declined—without adopting—a uniform rule requiring three-judge circuit‑court appellate panels, instead directing the Chief Justice to appoint a workgroup to study the issue further.
- Significant rule changes adopted include: clarified "rendition" and motions that toll rendition; expanded lists of appealable nonfinal orders (e.g., settlement‑agreement unenforceability; counsel disqualification); reorganization and new content standards for rehearing/certification/written‑opinion motions; a new notice of related case rule; limits on multiple briefs for jointly‑represented parties; electronic service and filing clarifications; and timing rules for attorneys’‑fees motions in discretionary review.
- The Court declined certain Committee proposals tied to separate, earlier‑rejected amendments (e.g., lead/limited‑representation counsel designations) and severed extensive proposed changes to the uniform citation rule for separate consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Committee/Proponent Argument | Opposing Commenters' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether circuit‑court appeals must be decided by three‑judge panels (new rule 9.030(c)(4)) | Panels promote better decisionmaking, reduce bias and errors, and create uniform appellate practice across circuits | Chief judges warned mandatory panels would strain resources, burden smaller circuits, and impede timely disposition; circuits seek discretion | Not adopted now; Court appointed a special workgroup to study panel requirement and related appellate‑process changes |
| Clarification of "rendition" and which motions toll rendition (rule 9.020) | Define rendition exceptions and list specific motions that toll rendition to reduce uncertainty | No major opposition; revisions made to separate certain motions (e.g., judgment in accordance with directed verdict; arrest of judgment) | Adopted with revisions; new subdivisions specify motions that toll rendition and their effects |
| Expansion of appealable nonfinal orders (rule 9.130) — e.g., settlement unenforceability and disqualification of counsel | Allow interlocutory review of orders determining settlement enforceability and orders granting/denying counsel disqualification to address important, reviewable legal questions early | No persuasive opposition recorded in opinion | Adopted: new subdivisions permit appeals on these nonfinal orders to district courts |
| Reorganization and expansion of rehearing/certification/written‑opinion practice (rule 9.330) | Clarify time/content/response requirements; require combined filing for motions under this rule; add grounds for requesting written opinions (guidance, conflicts, first impression, public importance) | Generally supported; ensures more structured practice and reduces repetitive filings | Adopted: subdivision (a) reorganized; motions combined into single filing; new content requirements for certification and written‑opinion requests |
Key Cases Cited
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995) (describes limits of district court review of circuit courts sitting in appellate capacity)
- Educ. Dev. Ctr., Inc. v. City of W. Palm Beach Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 541 So.2d 106 (Fla. 1989) (discusses appellate review standards for zoning/administrative matters)
- City of Deerfield Beach v. Vaillant, 419 So.2d 624 (Fla. 1982) (appellate review principles)
- Martin Cty. v. City of Stuart, 736 So.2d 1264 (Fla. 1999) (appellate review precedent)
- Dusseau v. Metro. Dade Cty., 794 So.2d 1270 (Fla. 2001) (addressed benefits of three‑judge circuit panels and uniformity concerns)
- Ivey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 774 So.2d 679 (Fla. 2000) (explains how three‑judge circuit panels produce reasoned written opinions aiding higher court review)
- Coastal Dev. of N. Fla., Inc. v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 788 So.2d 204 (Fla. 2001) (cited on circuit practice disparity)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. City of Dania, 761 So.2d 1089 (Fla. 2000) (noting lack of statewide criterion for circuit appellate practice)
- Broward Cty. v. G.B.V. Intern., Ltd., 787 So.2d 838 (Fla. 2001) (dissent cited concerning uniform appellate procedure)