Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

January 30, 2015 by admin

Appellate Practice – Non-substantive amendment to judgment which results in an “Amended Judgment” does not alter the 30 day window of time for filing notice of appeal

40 Fla. L. Weekly D268a


Dissolution of marriage — Alimony — Appeals — Timeliness — Husband’s
appeal of award of durational alimony to wife was not timely where notice of
appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of order — Time for filing
notice of appeal commenced on date of original judgment, not date of subsequent
amended judgment, where amendment of judgment was solely to correct scrivener’s
error in date and did not effect substantive change

STANLEY PANOPOULOS, Appellant, v. MARIA M. PANOPOULOS, Appellee. 2nd
District. Case No. 2D13-5234. Opinion filed January 23, 2015. Appeal pursuant to
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Daniel D. Diskey,
Judge. Counsel: John A. Shahan, Tarpon Springs, for Appellant. Johnny D. Drizis
of Law Office of Johnny D. Drizis, Clearwater, for Appellee.
(PER CURIAM.) In this appeal, Michael Panopoulos, Former Husband, challenges
an award of durational alimony to Maria Panopoulos, Former Wife. Because the
relevant order was not timely appealed, we dismiss this appeal for lack of
jurisdiction.
Former Wife petitioned for dissolution of her twenty-three-year marriage to
Former Husband. In a highly unusual procedure, the circuit court trifurcated the
dissolution proceedings.1 The circuit court
first dissolved the marriage by an order not on appeal. It then separated the
remainder of the proceedings by purporting to address “all financial issues”
first: it entered the appealed-from “partial final judgment” on those issues,
while reserving on timesharing and child support for the parties’ minor
children. In her petition, Former Wife sought retroactive alimony which the
court denied; however, in its “partial final judgment,” it awarded alimony to be
paid starting on October 1, 2012. The parties agreed that there was a
scrivener’s error and decided to contact the judge’s judicial assistant, rather
than filing a motion for rehearing, recognizing the date in the order should
have been October 1, 2013. The court issued an amended order that
corrected the error. Former Husband filed his notice to appeal that order on
October 23, 2013.
Former Husband’s notice of appeal was not timely. The initial order was
rendered on September 18, 2013. The order was amended to correct the scrivener’s
error in a date and the amended order was rendered on October 14, 2013. The
notice of appeal was filed on October 23, 2013. Accordingly, the notice was
timely filed from the corrected order but untimely as filed from the initial.
See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b) (stating that a notice of appeal must be
filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed). The timing of
the filing of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional matter. El Gohary v.
El Gohary
, 76 So. 3d 355, 356-57 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). The case law is clear
that where a judgment is amended to correct only a scrivener’s error, the time
for appeal is not tolled and instead is counted from the date of the initial
order. See Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So. 2d
164, 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“When a party wishes to challenge a judgment by
motion or appeal, the time to challenge the judgment runs from the original
judgment unless an amendment changes or clarifies a matter of substance.”
(citing St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1971))). In
this case, the amendment of the judgment was solely to correct an error in a
date and did not effect a substantive change. Accordingly, the time to appeal
from the order in this case commenced September 19, 2013, the day after the
first order was rendered. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.514(a)(1)(A). The
filing of the notice of appeal was October 23, over thirty days later. Thus, the
appeal was untimely and we are without jurisdiction to entertain it. Fortunately
for Former Husband, due to the unusual proceedings in this case, the issues
raised in this appeal will likely be within the scope of review of an appeal
from a final order of dissolution. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(h) (“The
court may review any ruling or matter occurring before filing of the notice.”).
Appeal dismissed. (ALTENBERND, NORTHCUTT, and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur.)
__________________
1It is an exceptional dissolution
proceeding in which bifurcation is a good idea. A trial court should not
bifurcate proceedings unless “it is clearly necessary for the best interests or
their children.” Claughton v. Claughton, 393 So. 2d 1061, 1062 (Fla.
1980). This trifurcation is even more unusual.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982