Ponton v. Gross
| Citation | 576 So.2d 910,16 Fla. L. Weekly 844 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-3707,90-3707 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 844 Alfonson Detroy PONTON and Reginald J. Williams, Appellants, v. Officer B.E. GROSS, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Alfonson Ponton, pro se appellant.
Joe Belitzky, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellees.
Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal arguing that the notice of appeal is untimely. We dismiss the appeal but for reasons other than the one asserted by the appellees.
Appellants filed a complaint seeking damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 31, 1990, the trial judge signed an order titled "Order Requiring Plaintiffs to File a Reasonably Legible Amended Complaint and Sanctions." This order was not rendered as defined by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g) until August 10, 1990. The order of the trial court allowed the plaintiffs until October 15, 1990, to file an amended complaint which complied with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.100 and 1.110. The trial court also required that the amended complaint be legible. If plaintiffs failed to file the amended complaint within the time allowed, the order provided that the "Civil Action shall stand dismissed effective 00:01 a.m. on 16 October 1990."
Plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint, nor was a subsequent order issued by the trial court. In the record, there is a memorandum dated November 21, 1990, from the trial judge to the circuit court clerk stating that because plaintiffs did not file an amended complaint the case had been dismissed in accordance with the order signed July 31, 1990. Appellants were notified by a clerk's letter dated November 27, 1990, that the case was dismissed. A notice of appeal was filed on December 6, 1990.
Appellees now move to dismiss, arguing that the notice of appeal is untimely as it was not filed within 30 days of the order rendered by the trial court. Appellees assert that the order was "entered" July 31, 1990. The date the order is signed is not controlling. Although the trial judge may have signed the order on July 31, 1990, the order was not rendered for purposes of calculating the time for taking an appeal until a signed, written order was filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal. Rule 9.020(g). Accordingly, the order was not rendered until August 10, 1990.
Although we have determined that the order was rendered August 10, 1990, the order is not a final order for purposes of taking an appeal. The trial court's order contains a contingency allowing the proceedings to continue if plaintiffs filed an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Connor v. State
...the trial court is not divested of jurisdiction, and the litigation continues until a final order is entered. Hancock; Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So.2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). As we stated in Andrews v. McGowan, 739 So.2d 132, 135 (Fla......
-
Guglielmi v. Guglielmi
...in the order is not a final order and the happening of the event does not operate to render the order final."); Ponton v. Gross , 576 So. 2d 910, 911 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (explaining that an order cannot be made to become final prospectively based on the occurrence or nonoccurrence of a futu......
-
Newman v. Newman
...become final. See Scott ex rel. Scott v. Women's Med. Group, P.A., 837 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). See also Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (holding that the order, which stated that the court would dismiss the action if the amended complaint were not filed within the ......
-
Scott ex rel. Scott v. WOMEN'S MED. GROUP, PA, 1D02-4513.
...final. See, e.g. United Water Florida, Inc. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 728 So.2d 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Ponton v. Gross, 576 So.2d 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The instant order is not an appealable nonfinal order under rule 9.130(a)(4), because it contemplates a future final orde......