Clearly these facts bring the notice filed within the doctrine of Seaboard and within the rule of construction that statutes giving a right of appeal should be liberally construed in the interest of manifest justice. State ex rel. Dedmon v. Carroll, 1963, Fla., 151 So.2d 5; Rabinovitz v. Houk, 1930, 100 Fla. 44, 129 So. 501; Seaboard Air Line Railroad Co. v. Holt, supra. Where a notice of appeal specifies two judgments, one appealable, and one not, it has been held by the Third District that this does not affect the validity of the notice: The specification of the non-appealable order is held to be surplusage and is disregarded. Under a liberal construction of the appeal statutes, this would seem to be the only tenable result.
In fact, the cases in this state have clearly held that the failure to serve a notice of appeal is not jurisdictional. In State ex rel. Dedmon v. Carroll, 151 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1963), the court explained: "[The rule] requires that a copy of the notice of appeal be served on the opposing parties . . . . However, we know of no provision of the Rules or of any decisions which hold the alleged lack of service to be jurisdictional.
The first is whether or not the payment of the filing fee is jurisdictional. This Court in State ex rel. Dedmon v. Carroll, 151 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 1963) (dicta) observed that Florida Appellate Rule 3.2(d) ". . . clearly provides that jurisdiction is accomplished by the filing of the notice of appeal in the trial court and payment of the required fee."
"Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Holt, supra, [Fla., 1955, 80 So.2d 354] decided in 1955, laid down one test for the sufficiency of a notice of appeal: a notice which gives to the adverse party and to the appellate court information by the use of which the order or judgment intended to be appealed can be discovered in the record with a reasonable degree of certainty is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. State ex rel. Dedmon v. Carroll [Fla., 1963, 151 So.2d 5] reiterated the Seaboard test and added the test of whether or not the complaining party was misled or prejudiced by the mistake. On reconsideration of the problem, it seems to us that the test of prejudice to the adversary is the essential test, the deciding test.
"Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Holt, supra [Fla., 80 So.2d 354], decided in 1955, laid down one test for the sufficiency of a notice of appeal: a notice which gives to the adverse party and to the appellate court information by the use of which the order or judgment intended to be appealed can be discovered in the record with a reasonable degree of certainty is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. State ex rel. Dedmon v. Carroll [Fla., 1963, 151 So.2d 5, 8] reiterated the Seaboard test and added the test of whether or not the complaining party was misled or prejudiced by the mistake. On reconsideration of the problem, it seems to us that the test of prejudice to the adversary is the essential test, the deciding test.
It encompasses within it that of Seaboard for if the notice gives information pointing to the order appealed from in the record, there can be no prejudice. Fla., 1963, 151 So.2d 5, 8. Such a rule is in accord with the spirit of our Constitution which gives an appeal from trial courts to courts of appeal as a matter of right; and with the appellate rules which provide that jurisdiction shall attach in the appellate court upon the filing of notice and deposit of the filing fee with the clerk of the lower court.
Notices [of appeal] are the simplest yet by far the most important of all documents which are necessary in an appeal. No lawyer should draw one without rereading the applicable rule and should never file one without carefully reading and checking the notice.State ex rel. Dedmon v. Carroll, 151 So.2d 5, 9 (Fla. 1963). Since no prejudice resulted from the incorrect notice of appeal and since the notice was timely as to all appellants, this court's order to show cause dated June 25, 1990 is discharged.
Fla.R.App.P. 9.420(b). However, service of the notice of appeal is not jurisdictional. State v. Carroll, 151 So.2d 5 (Fla. 1963); Williams v. State, 324 So.2d 74 (Fla. 1975). While the sanction of dismissal is clearly available in proper circumstances for failure of appellant to comply with the rules, we decline to do so in this case.