Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Florida Legislature Repeals Longstanding Law on Terms of Courts and Creates New Law Affecting Appellate Court’s Ability To Recall Mandate
July 24, 2013

In the 2013 legislative session, the Florida Legislature repealed the set of statutes that originated at the turn of the twentieth century setting terms of courts for all of Florida’s circuit courts, district courts of appeal, and the supreme court.  The law becomes effective January 1, 2014.  See Ch. 2-13-25, § 25, Laws of Fla. (2013).

In place of set court terms, the Legislature created section 43.43. This new statute gives the Florida Supreme Court the discretion to (1) establish terms of court for the Supreme Court, the district courts of appeal, and the circuit courts; (2) authorize those courts to establish their own terms of court; or (3) dispense with terms altogether.

Of particular relevance to appellate practitioners, however, is the creation of section 43.44, which applies to appellate court mandates.  That new section provides:

An appellate court may, as the circumstances and justice of the case may require, reconsider, revise, reform, or modify its own opinions and orders for the purpose of making the same accord with law and justice. Accordingly, an appellate court may recall its own mandate for the purpose of allowing it to exercise such jurisdiction and power in a proper case. A mandate may not be recalled more than 120 days after it has been issued.

Ch. 2013-25, § 10, Laws of Fla. (2013).  This statute changes longstanding decisional law, holding that “the jurisdiction of an appellate court over its judgments persists to the end of the term at which the judgment is rendered, and then absolutely terminates, in the absence of statute or rule having the effect of a statute in force to the contrary.”  Westberry v. Copeland Sausage Co., 397 So. 2d 1018, 1019 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (citing Chapman v. St. Stephens Protestant Episcopal Church, 138 So. 630 (Fla. 1932)).

Whether section 43.44 restricts or broadens an appellate court’s ability to alter a final decision by recalling its mandate depends of course on when the decision would have been issued during the court’s former term.  If a decision had been entered early on during the court’s term, section 43.44 now restricts the time limit during which the appellate court could recall its mandate. On the other hand, if the decision had been entered near the end of the court’s term, section 43.44 expands the time within which the court could recall its mandate.
Related Practices
Appellate & Trial Support
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.