Appellate Court Rules Committee.

• Author: Mullins, Edward M.
• Position: Florida

I thank all the members, subcommittee chairs, officers of the committee (ACRC), and our staff liaison, Joanna Mauer, for the tremendous effort put in this year.

First, as an update to last year's work, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on proposed rules by the ACRC and rendered a decision in October 2006. Former Chair Jack Reiter argued in favor of the rules at the Supreme Court. In its opinion, In re Amendments to The Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure (Out of Cycle), 941 So. 2d 352 (Fla. 2006), the court commented on the exhaustive research and preparation by the committee. The court adopted the committee's proposed amendment that would require jurisdictional briefs when a district court certifies direct conflict pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(vi), but did not adopt an amendment for a similar procedure when a district court certifies a question of great public importance pursuant to Rule 9.030(a)(2)(A)(v). The ACRC had proposed several amendments to Rule 9.130, for nonfinal appeals, including to allow appeals from nonfinal orders granting, modifying, dissolving, or refusing to grant, modify, or dissolve writs of replevin, garnishment, or attachment; from nonfinal orders determining the right to child custody in juvenile dependency and termination of parental rights cases; and from any authorized motions for relief from judgment. This court did not adopt any of these proposals because this rule is part of an ongoing study by the court. These rules will be resubmitted at an appropriate time.

The court also amended Rule 9.200(b)(2) to require court reporters to include an electronic version of trial transcripts. The court also adopted the ACRC's proposal to extend the page limitation for answer briefs and initial briefs on cross-appeals from 50 to 85 pages. Other successful amendments involved automatically tolling with motions for enlargement of time in the Florida Supreme Court, addressing when amicus curiae briefs are due, and the lower court's holding orders and judgments in dependency and termination of parental rights cases.

In terms of new projects, the Supreme Court requested that the ACRC study whether an amendment to Rule 9.310 is needed in light of the recently passed statute, F.S. [section] 45.045, which, except for class actions, sets a limit on supersedeas bonds of $50 million and allows the trial court discretion to lower the amount of a supersedeas bond under certain circumstances. Ultimately, after much hard work and...