Gonzalez v. Metro Dade Police Department
Docket: No. 90-1822
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; February 18, 1991; Florida; State Appellate Court
The trial court issued a final judgment of forfeiture on July 6, 1990, prompting respondent Gonzalez to timely file a motion for rehearing on July 16, 1990. Before the rehearing motion could be heard or resolved, Gonzalez filed a notice of appeal on August 3, 1990. He subsequently requested the appellate court to relinquish jurisdiction to the trial court to address the rehearing motion. The court denied this request, affirming the established rule that filing a notice of appeal effectively abandons any pending post-judgment motion, thereby granting exclusive jurisdiction to the appellate court and removing the trial court's authority to act on the motion. This principle, rooted in longstanding case law, prevents potential chaos in appellate processes and litigation outcomes. The court acknowledged that some language from Williams v. State has caused confusion regarding this rule, particularly the "limbo jurisdiction" doctrine, but clarified that this doctrine does not apply in cases where the appellant has chosen to appeal, which inherently contradicts the pending motion. The court emphasized that the statements in Williams do not overrule the abandonment doctrine, since they were unnecessary to the case's actual resolution. Therefore, the ruling reinforces the abandonment principle while addressing the misinterpretations stemming from prior decisions. In Accord Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Codomo, the court reaffirmed the applicability of the abandonment rule following the Williams precedent, emphasizing its consistency with established judicial doctrines. The court highlighted that post-trial motions are considered abandoned when filed simultaneously with a notice of appeal, diverging from previous rulings that suggested otherwise. The ruling clarifies that notices of appeal filed after an oral judgment but before formal rendition are not premature and remain valid. This interpretation aims to address and overturn the precedent set in Bannister v. Hart, ensuring that appellants do not hinder their opponents from pursuing post-trial motions. The author acknowledges a shift in opinion regarding this view but maintains its current validity. The appellant was granted a ten-day period to file their brief, with a warning that failure to do so would result in dismissal of the appeal.