{"id":1975,"date":"2018-05-04T08:45:32","date_gmt":"2018-05-04T08:45:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/bresky-merger.local.com\/posts\/the-fourth-district-court-of-appeal-disapproves-the-clerk-of-the-courts-practice-of-backdating-judgments\/"},"modified":"2018-05-04T08:45:32","modified_gmt":"2018-05-04T08:45:32","slug":"the-fourth-district-court-of-appeal-disapproves-the-clerk-of-the-courts-practice-of-backdating-judgments","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/the-fourth-district-court-of-appeal-disapproves-the-clerk-of-the-courts-practice-of-backdating-judgments\/","title":{"rendered":"The Fourth District Court Of Appeal Disapproves The Clerk Of The Court’s Practice Of Backdating Judgments"},"content":{"rendered":"

In Guy v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc.<\/em>, Case No. 4D17-3335 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 25, 2018), the summary judgment hearing in a foreclosure case was held on an afternoon in September of 2017. However, the lower tribunal\u2019s clerk\u2019s office\u2019s electronic time stamp revealed that the final judgment was filed approximately five hours before <\/u>the scheduled hearing.<\/p>\n

In appealing the final judgment, the Appellant filed a motion to correct the record on appeal. The Fourth DCA ordered the Broward County Clerk\u2019s office to file a response to the motion and for the Appellee to file a response to the clerk\u2019s office\u2019s response. The response from the clerk\u2019s office stated that the stamp indicates the time that the clerk\u2019s office scanned the judgment for processing to the electronic case management system. In reviewing the information contained in the Appellee\u2019s response, the Fourth DCA explained that when the clerk\u2019s office receives the final judgment after the date of entry, the clerk\u2019s office backdates the date of filing to match the date of the judgment\u2019s entry but the time reflects the actual time of scanning.<\/p>\n

Therefore, it appears that the clerk\u2019s office, in Guy<\/em>, received the final judgment subsequent to the date of entry. While the clerk\u2019s time stamp apparently reflected the actual time of scanning, the stamp\u2019s date was backdated to the date of the entry of the judgment. As a result, the electronic stamp on the final judgment appeared to indicate that the document was filed before the actual entry of the judgment.<\/p>\n

The Fourth DCA\u2019s motion panel decided to issue a written opinion on the motion to correct the record, to disapprove the practice of the Clerk\u2019s office of Broward County as such practice conflicts with Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(i). The Fourth DCA explained that the time for an appeal runs from the date of rendition, which is the date that the clerk\u2019s office receives an order or judgment, not the date the judgment is signed by the judge. See<\/em>Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i) (defining \u201crendition\u201d of an order as occurring \u201cwhen a signed, written order is filed with the clerk of the lower tribunal\u201d). The Court added, \u201cBy backdating the electronic filing stamp, the clerk changes the rendition date, possibly to the prejudice of an appellant. . . . It can cause, at best, confusion, and at worst, a loss of appellate rights.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Fourth DCA denied the motion to correct the record, as it found that the Appellant in Guy <\/em>was not deprived of his appellate rights in that particular case. \u201cWe nevertheless disapprove of this practice as it is inconsistent with the appellate rules,\u201d the opinion concluded. The opinion did not decide the merits of the appeal as the opinion was issued before the Initial Brief was filed. The opinion is not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Guy v. Plaza Home Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 4D17-3335 (Fla. 4th DCA Apr. 25, 2018), the summary judgment hearing in a foreclosure case was held on an afternoon in September of 2017. However, the lower tribunal\u2019s clerk\u2019s office\u2019s electronic time stamp revealed that the final judgment was filed approximately five hours before the scheduled hearing. In…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1811,1807,1806,1805,1838,1827],"tags":[1845],"class_list":["post-1975","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-4th-dca-rulings","category-bresky-appellate-cases","category-family","category-foreclosure","category-notable-cases","category-u-s-court-of-appeals","tag-commercial"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1975","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1975"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1975\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1975"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1975"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ssrga.com\/appellate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1975"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}