PATRICK RICE, Petitioner,
v.
CHARLES FREEMAN, Respondent.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Robin F. Frydman, for petitioner.
Charles Freeman, in proper person.
Before COPE, C.J., and WELLS, J., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
WELLS, Judge.
Patrick Rice petitions this court to issue a writ prohibiting the Eleventh Judicial Circuit Court Appellate Division from entertaining Charles Freeman's appeal from a County Court money judgment. We grant the petition but withhold issuance of a writ confident that the Appellate Division will comply with this opinion.
On November 7, 2005, a final money judgment in the amount of $2,555 was entered against Freeman in Rice's favor. Although that judgment was entered following a non-jury trial, at which both Rice and Freeman were in attendance, the judgment was inaccurately titled "DEFAULT FINAL JUDGMENT." This judgment was rendered on November 9 when it was filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal.[1] See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h) (defining rendition as "when a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal" unless a timely authorized motion tolling rendition is filed).
On November 23, 2005, the County Court sua sponte entered a second final judgment, this one identical in all respects to the original November 7 judgment save the title which removed the inaccurate "default" moniker. On December 14, 2005, Freeman filed a notice of appeal from the "Corrected Final Judgment." However this notice did not timely invoke the jurisdiction of the appellate court.
"Under Rule 9.110, the `[f]ailure to file any notice within the 30-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.'" Miami-Dade County v. Peart,
"Florida follows the majority rule that, where a judgment is amended in a material respect, the appeal time runs from the date of the amendment, provided the amendment is material, not minor or formal." DeGale v. Krongold, Bass & Todd,
Only when the lower Court changes matters of substance, or resolves a genuine ambiguity, in a judgment previously rendered should the period within which an appeal must be taken or a petition for certiorari filed begin to run anew.
See Maxfly Aviation Inc. v. Capital Airlines Ltd.,
In this regard, "[t]he question is whether the lower court, in its second order, has disturbed or revised legal rights and obligations which, by its prior judgment, had been plainly and properly settled with finality." St. Moritz Hotel,
We thus grant the petition but withhold actual issuance of the writ, trusting it unnecessary in light of the statements made herein.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DISPOSED OF.
NOTES
Notes
[1] No post trial or post judgment motions were filed.
