Culpepper v. Britt, 82-2893
| Decision Date | 06 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-2893,82-2893 |
| Citation | 434 So.2d 31 |
| Parties | Marie CULPEPPER and her husband, Oralle V. Culpepper, Appellants, v. Charles Wesley BRITT, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
The appellees have raised in their brief the issue of the timeliness of the appeal in this case. Upon consideration of this issue sua sponte and prior to oral argument, we conclude that the appeal is, in fact, untimely, and we therefore dismiss.
The jury verdict for the appellees was dated January 21, 1982, and was filed on January 26, 1982. On January 29, 1982, the appellees filed a motion to tax costs that was served the previous day.
On February 9, 1982, the trial judge entered a "final judgment pursuant to the jury verdict" which was filed on February 11, 1982. The appellants then filed and served a motion for new trial on February 19, 1982. The trial judge entered a final judgment taxing costs on March 26, 1982, which was filed on March 29, 1982. After a delay caused by an internal transfer of cases, a new judge denied the motion for new trial in an order entered November 30, 1982, and filed December 1, 1982. The appellants filed their notice of appeal on December 28, 1982.
Obviously, the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the final judgment. However, appellants argue that they filed their appeal within thirty days of the denial of their motion for new trial. This argument presupposes that their motion for new trial was timely filed in spite of rule 1.530(b), Florida Rule of Civil Procedure, which requires motions for new trial to be filed within ten days after the rendition of the jury verdict. Appellants assert that appellees' motion to tax costs had the effect of delaying rendition of the jury verdict so as to make their motion for new trial timely.
Appellants' argument relies on Lehmann v. Cloniger, 294 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), but that case is not controlling. Whatever the wisdom of that decision may otherwise be, the court there relied on the former wording of rule 1.3, Florida Appellate Rule, now rule 9.020(g), Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure. The former rule provided that the filing of a timely post-trial motion permitted by the rules postponed "rendition" until...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruitt v. Brock
...rendered for purposes of a timely motion for new trial. See Menfi v. Exxon Company, 433 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Culpepper v. Britt, 434 So.2d 31 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Although we find it unnecessary to consider the wisdom of Casto in determining the issue before us, we would repeat the......
-
Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. of Conn. v. Sealey
...See Klemba v. State, 490 So.2d 1050 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Joseph v. State, 437 So.2d 245, 246 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Culpepper v. Britt, 434 So.2d 31, 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). If a party files a motion that is authorized in the proceeding, but not listed in rule 9.020(h), the time for filing an ......
-
Culpepper v. Britt
...416 444 So.2d 416 Culpepper (Marie) v. Britt (Charels Wesley) NO. 64104 Supreme Court of Florida. JAN 24, 1984 Appeal From: 2d DCA 434 So.2d 31 Pet. for rev. ...
-
Jurisdiction is jurisdiction: a warning to litigators.
...for rehearing. See Dep't of Corrs. v. Career Serv. Comm'n, 429 So. 2d 1244 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 1983). (3) See, e.g., Culpepper v. Britt, 434 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1983) (motion to tax costs did not toll rendition), rev. denied, 444 So. 2d 416 (Fla. (4) "A motion for new trial or for rehear......
-
Top 10 appellate mistakes (or why you need an appellate specialist).
...Plain Talk on Appellate Advocacy, 20 LITIGATION 3 (1994). (2) RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR 4-1.1. (3) See, e.g., Culpepper v. Britt, 434 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1983)(motion to tax costs did not toll rendition), rev. denied, 444 So. 2d 416 (Flat (4) For a discussion of the appealabili......