Background
The Florida Bar’s Appellate Court Rules Committee filed a report proposing amendments to five Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure: rule 9.100 (Original Proceedings), rule 9.210 (Briefs), rule 9.310 (Stay Pending Review), rule 9.800 (Uniform Citation System), and rule 9.900 (Forms). The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar unanimously recommended acceptance of all proposed amendments. The Supreme Court published the proposals for public comment, and one comment was received specifically addressing the proposed changes to rule 9.100.
In response to that comment, the Appellate Court Rules Committee withdrew its proposed amendment to rule 9.100 but asked the Court to adopt the remaining amendments as proposed. The Court accepted the withdrawal as to rule 9.100 and proceeded to consider the remaining proposals, ultimately adopting them with additional modifications to rule 9.210 and a minor adjustment to the proposed amendment to rule 9.900.
The Court’s Holding
The Florida Supreme Court adopted amendments to rules 9.210, 9.310, 9.800, and 9.900, effective September 1, 2026. Most significantly, the Court amended rule 9.210 to add a new subdivision (b)(3) requiring that initial briefs include a jurisdictional statement — specifying whether the order appealed is final, or if nonfinal, the procedural rule or statutory basis for appellate jurisdiction. The Court also amended renumbered subdivision (b)(6) to expressly require that argument sections identify, for each issue, citation to appropriate authorities, a record citation showing where the issue was preserved, and a statement of the applicable standard of review.
For rule 9.310 governing stays pending review, the Court clarified the automatic stay bond formula for money judgments by deleting the word “principal” and replacing ambiguous language to make clear that the bond must equal the judgment amount plus twice the statutory interest rate in effect on the date the judgment is filed — resolving uncertainty about whether postjudgment interest accrues on any prejudgment interest component. The Court also updated rule 9.800’s case citation format examples to reflect the current four-digit year and four-digit case number designator system, and amended the nonfinal order notice of appeal forms in rule 9.900 to require filers to cite the specific subdivision of the applicable appellate rule authorizing review and to clarify that the date sought is the date of the order being appealed.
Key Takeaways
- Initial briefs filed on or after September 1, 2026 must include a new jurisdictional statement explaining the basis for appellate jurisdiction — whether the order is final or, if nonfinal, which rule or statute permits review.
- The argument section of initial briefs must now explicitly state, for each issue: citation to authorities, a record citation establishing preservation, and the applicable standard of review.
- The automatic stay bond for money judgments is clarified: the bond equals the judgment amount plus twice the statutory interest rate in effect on the date the judgment is filed, removing prior ambiguity about computing interest on prejudgment interest.
- Notices of appeal of nonfinal orders must now cite the specific subdivision of the appellate rule under which review is sought, not merely the rule number.
- The proposed amendment to rule 9.100 was withdrawn by the Committee in response to a public comment and was not adopted.
Why It Matters
These amendments impose new, concrete briefing requirements on Florida appellate practitioners. The mandatory jurisdictional statement and the explicit preservation-and-standard-of-review requirements in argument sections are not merely organizational preferences — failure to comply could provide grounds for motions to strike or procedural dismissal. Attorneys handling Florida appeals should revise their brief templates before the September 1, 2026 effective date.
The clarification to the automatic stay bond formula in rule 9.310 is particularly significant for judgment creditors and debtors in large money-judgment cases, where the question of whether postjudgment interest compounds on a prejudgment interest award can meaningfully affect the bond amount required to obtain an automatic stay of execution during appeal.