Florida initial briefs now have to state their own jurisdiction.
An amendment that took effect on September 1 adds a new item near the front of every initial brief in a Florida appeal, and rewrites what the argument section must contain for each issue. A second amendment changes how a money judgment stay bond is calculated. Three consequences for practicing attorneys.
By Helena Harper, Editorial Director
As of September 1, every initial brief in a Florida appeal must state why the judgment or order is appealable. The statement belongs immediately after the tables of contents and citations, before the statement of the case and facts.
The June 11 order took effect on September 1
The Supreme Court of Florida adopted the requirement in a corrected per curiam opinion issued June 11, 2026. The case is In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. SC2025-0241.
The amendments took effect September 1, 2026, at 12:01 a.m. The opinion states that a motion for rehearing does not alter that date. Chief Justice Muñiz and Justices Labarga, Couriel, Grosshans, Francis, Sasso and Tanenbaum concurred.
The Florida Bar's Appellate Court Rules Committee proposed amendments to rules 9.100, 9.210, 9.310, 9.800 and 9.900. The Board of Governors unanimously recommended acceptance. After publication, the Court received one comment, addressing only rule 9.100. The committee withdrew that proposal, and the Court adopted the remaining amendments with changes of its own to rule 9.210 and a minor modification to rule 9.900.
The first page must identify the basis for appellate jurisdiction
New rule 9.210(b)(3) requires a jurisdictional statement. For a final judgment or order, the statement must identify the basis for claiming finality.
For a nonfinal order, the brief must identify the basis for claiming that the order is otherwise appealable. That includes the procedural rule or statutory provision supporting jurisdiction and "a concise statement of the relevant facts establishing jurisdiction."
The new item appears after the table of citations and before the statement of the case and facts. Before the amendment, the rule moved directly from the table of citations to the statement of the case and facts. It did not require a jurisdictional statement in the initial merits brief.
The statement addresses whether the appellate court has authority to review the order. Rules 9.110 and 9.130 are the ordinary starting points for jurisdiction over appeals of final and nonfinal orders, respectively.
Adding the new third item also renumbered everything that follows. The statement of the case and facts moved from subdivision (b)(3) to (b)(4). The summary of argument is now (b)(5), argument is (b)(6), and the conclusion is (b)(7). The certificates of service and compliance are now (b)(8) and (b)(9). Brief templates, internal forms and older decisions may still refer to the former numbers.
Each issue now needs a preservation citation
The Court also rewrote the argument requirement in rule 9.210(b)(6). For each issue presented, the initial brief must include argument supported by appropriate authority, a record citation showing where the issue was preserved, and a statement of the applicable standard of review.
The record citation is the new substantive requirement. The prior rule already required the applicable appellate standard of review. The amendment changes that wording to require "a statement of" the standard and expressly organizes the required material by each issue presented.
The amended rule therefore puts jurisdiction and preservation in the appellant's opening brief. The jurisdictional statement addresses the court's authority to conduct review. Each argument then identifies where that issue was preserved in the record.
The stay bond uses the judgment amount and the filing date rate
Rule 9.310(b)(1) permits an automatic stay of execution of a money judgment pending review. A party may obtain the stay without a motion or court order by posting a good and sufficient bond.
The amended formula requires a bond equal to the amount of the judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest in effect on the date the judgment is filed. The prior text referred to the "principal amount" of the judgment and twice the statutory interest rate on the total amount on which the party had an obligation to pay interest.
The Court deleted "principal" to make clear that the bond must equal the judgment amount plus twice the statutory interest rate. It replaced the trailing language to clarify whether postjudgment interest can be awarded on the part of a judgment consisting of prejudgment interest.
The rule still permits multiple parties with common liability to file one bond that meets the criteria. The title of subdivision (b) now reads "Exceptions; Automatic Stay."
Citation examples and nonfinal appeal forms also changed
Rule 9.800's examples now use four digit years and four digit case number designators. The update replaces examples using two digit years and varying numbers of digits in case designators.
The Court also amended the forms for a notice of appeal and a notice of cross-appeal from a nonfinal order under rule 9.900(c). The committee proposed requiring the filer to identify the appellate rule supporting review. The Court made that instruction more specific. The forms now ask for the rule number and the particular subdivision on which review is based.
The forms also clarify that the requested date is the date of the order being appealed. Instructions for attaching conformed copies of designated orders now appear in a separate bracketed paragraph referencing rules 9.110(d), 9.130(c) and 9.160(c).
The proposal to amend rule 9.100 did not survive the comment process. The committee withdrew it, and the Court declined to amend that rule at this time.
Answer briefs, reply briefs and existing sanctions remain unchanged
Rule 9.210(a) and subdivisions (c) through (h) remain unchanged, as do the committee notes and court commentary.
Rule 9.210(c) still states that an answer brief must be prepared in the same manner as an initial brief, except that the statement of the case and facts may be omitted when the corresponding section of the initial brief is satisfactory. The order does not separately resolve how the new jurisdictional statement applies under that language.
Rule 9.210(d) still requires reply briefs to contain tables of contents and citations, a certificate of service, and, for computer-generated briefs, a certificate of compliance, together with responsive and rebuttal argument.
The compliance certificate requirement did not substantively change. Rule 9.210(b)(9) now places the qualifier first, clarifying that the certificate is required only for computer-generated briefs.
The amendments create no new sanction. Existing rule 9.410(a) permits sanctions after 10 days' notice for appellate rule violations and filings that are frivolous or made in bad faith. Available sanctions include reprimand, contempt, striking a brief or pleading, dismissal, costs, attorneys' fees and other sanctions.
Three consequences for practicing attorneys
The amendments affect the opening pages of the brief, each issue's argument, and the calculation of a money judgment stay bond.
Jurisdiction moves to the front
New subdivision (b)(3) sits between the table of citations and the statement of the case and of the facts. For a final order it asks for the basis of finality; for a nonfinal order it asks for the rule or statute relied on plus the facts that establish jurisdiction.
Every issue needs a record citation
Renumbered subdivision (b)(6) now requires, for each issue presented, a citation to the record on appeal where the issue was preserved. The standard of review was already required by the old text. The preservation citation is the new element.
The stay bond formula changed
Rule 9.310(b)(1) now sets the automatic stay bond at the amount of the judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest in effect on the date the judgment is filed. The word "principal" is gone, and so is the old trailing clause.
The order was unanimous, and the only comment it drew went to the one rule the committee then withdrew. The four amendments that survived were adopted without dissent.
An appellate court must determine whether it may review the order before reaching the merits. Rule 9.210 now asks the appellant to supply that answer near the front of the initial brief.
The same brief must show where each issue was preserved below. Both questions were always available to the court. As of September 1, the rule text puts them to the party who brought the appeal, first.
Archivar
The Archivar Editorial Desk
Fact-checked against the authorities listed below. This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.
Sources: Supreme Court of Florida, In Re: Amendments to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, No. SC2025-0241, corrected opinion, June 11, 2026, including the appendix setting out the amended rule text; Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.210, 9.310, 9.800, 9.900 and 9.410, as amended effective September 1, 2026; article V, section 2(a), Florida Constitution; Florida Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.140(b)(1); The Florida Bar, Appellate Court Rules Committee proposes amendments to Rules 9.210 and 9.310; Appellate Practice Section of The Florida Bar, Rules Round-Up, Changes to Florida's Appellate Rules; Butler Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Florida Supreme Court Adopts Key Amendments to Appellate Procedure; Losey PLLC, Florida Supreme Court Mandates Jurisdictional Statements in New Appellate Rule Amendments.
