Miguel Estivill, et ux. v. Philip Von Kahle

Where the 3DCA neglected their prime duty to Rule by affirming the Trial Court’s order which was in clear violation of R. Jud. Admin. 2.215(f) and Florida Rules, Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3, B(l) i.e. Duty to Rule within a Reasonable Time and Adjudicative Responsibilities respectively. The 3DCA caused the petitioners Irreparable Harm/loss which cannot be remedied through a final appeal. Where the 3DCA while having Jurisdiction violated Petitioners Constitutional Rights as per the United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, when they abridged Petitioners right and privilege of a Fair Hearing, by not Hearing and Ruling on Petitioners Motion for Rehearing and Reconsideration Filed at the Trial Court Level which was previously denied for Lack of Jurisdiction, which cannot be the same answer from the 3DCA., hence affirming the Trial’s Court Order is a Serious Legal Mistake. Whereas per Rule 9.330(a)(2)(D)(i)., a legitimate basis for supreme court review. The decision rendered by the Third District Court of Appeal in Miguel Estivill and Cirabel Estivill v. Philip Von Kahle expressly and directly conflicts with the Fifth v District Court of Appeal decision in Berry v. Berry regarding what is defined as a 2