B. G. LEASING, INC., ETC., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARION HEIDER, ET UX., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appeal is untimely because the amended final judgment did not substantively change the original judgment, and thus did not restart the appeal clock.
An amended final judgment was entered after an original judgment, deleting two of the three insured parties. The appeal was filed within thirty days o…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Amended Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
[*185] PER CURIAM.
A party was injured by an automobile owned by B. G. Leasing, Inc., leased to Arthur Manners and driven by his wife, Blanche Gordon Manners. The Manners were insured by Travelers Insurance Company.
Suit was instituted by the injured party and her husband against the lessor and the Manners, together with Travelers. After an adverse jury verdict, final judgment was entered against the insureds (B. G. Leasing, Inc. and the Manners) and their insurer. See: Hertz Corporation v. Pugh, 354 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). Thereafter, the trial court entered an amended final judgment, deleting two of the three insureds (the Manners). This appeal was taken more than thirty days from the original final judgment, but within thirty days of the amended final judgment.
No error is urged in the amended final judgment by the appellants. The amended final judgment did not change the status of the remaining insured and Travelers from the original final judgment. Therefore, the appeal is untimely as to the original final judgment and same is dismissed. See: Betts v. Fowelin, 203 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967), wherein the following is found:
“. . . Thus, the mere fact that a judgment previously entered has been reentered or revised in an immaterial way does not toll the time within which review must be sought. Only when the lower Court changes matters of substance, or resolves a genuine ambiguity, in a judgment previously rendered should the period within which an appeal must be taken or a petition for certiorari filed begin to run anew. The test is a practical one. The question is whether the lower court, in its second order, has disturbed or revised legal rights and obligations which, by its prior judgment had been plainly and properly settled with finality.”
Also see: Salinger v. Salinger, 100 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1958).
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Auto. Fiberglass Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…delay the time for seeking review. St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So. 2d 27 (Fla.1971). The time for taking an appeal is tolled only if the second order changes matters of substance or resolves a genuine ambiguity. B. G. Leasing, Inc. v. Heider, 372 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The test is whether the court in the second order has disturbed or revised legal rights and obligations which had been settled with finality in the original order. Id; cf. Salinger v. Salinger, 100 So. 2d 393 (Fla.1958) [trial co…
-
David M. Dresdner, M.D., P.A. v. The Charter OAK Fire Ins. Co., 972 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…n of time for filing for review. As this court has held, the mere fact that a judgment previously entered has been reentered or revised in an immaterial way does not toll the time within which review must be sought. See B.G. Leasing, Inc. v. Heider, 372 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The notice of appeal having been filed more than thirty days after rendition of the original final order, we lack jurisdiction over it. Id. In a similar case, the Fourth District affirmed a trial court order that had denied reli…
-
DeGALE v. Krongold, 773 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…ad been plainly and properly settled with finality.’ St. Moritz, 249 So. 2d at 28 (quoting Federal Trade Comm’n v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U.S. 206, 211-12, 73 S.Ct. 245, 97 L.Ed. 245 (1952)); see also B.G. Leasing, Inc. v. Heider, 372 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979); Betts, 203 So. 2d at 631-32. There is no substantive change between the original final summary judgment and order and the subsequent amendment of that judgment and order. Both the original and amended judgments grant final summ…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rolf Peter Salinger v. Salinger, 100 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1958)
- Betts v. Fowelin, 203 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)
- The HERTZ Corp. & Royal Indem. Co. v. Pugh, 354 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)