This appeal, brought by the father in this dependency case, was not filed within 30 days of the date of rendition of the July 20, 2015, appealable orders. The August 19, 2015, amended orders contain immaterial changes to the July 20 orders and therefore do not have the effect of restarting the time within which to seek appellate review. See St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So.2d 27 (Fla.1971); Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So.2d 649 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“An amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial, insubstantial way does not restart the clock to file an appeal” and an appellant may not rely on even substantial or material modifications in an amended judgment to appeal issues adversely decided in the earlier judgment that remained unchanged); DeGale v. Krongold, Bass & Todd, 773 So.2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).
B.R. v. Department of Children & Families175 So. 3d 388 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) · 1D15-3908-2
- Court
- 1st DCA
- Decided
- 2015-10-12
- Case
- Dependency
- Appellant
- Father
Dismissed Appeal dismissed as untimely because amended orders with immaterial changes did not restart the 30-day deadline; dismissal is without prejudice to seeking trial-court relief.
Summary, issues, facts, outcome, and appellant were extracted automatically from the opinion. Check the opinion itself before relying on them.
Opinion text: CourtListener, Free Law Project. Not an official reporter; check the court's version before citing.
Not cited
No opinion in CourtListener's collection cites this case.
Cites 2 opinions in this collection
Citations to cases outside the collection are linked in the opinion text itself.
- R.Z. v. Department of Children & Families 1D07-4623 · 1st DCA 2007Father's appeal from a dependency adjudication dismissed as untimely, without prejudice to seeking relief in the trial court or appealing the disposition order.
- In re E.H. SC79262 · Florida Supreme Court 1992