THOMAS A. PETERSON, APPELLANT,
v.
PAULA ELAINE PETERSON, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
This appeal is hereby dismissed. After a final judgment was entered in a dissolution action, the wife filed a post-judgment petition in the nature of a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) seeking to set aside the final judgment and the agreement incorporated therein upon allegations of fraud and other misconduct by her former husband. The husband filed a motion to dismiss the wife’s petition and the trial court denied the motion to dismiss. Pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4), the husband seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motion to dismiss. We do not believe that the husband’s motion was an “authorized” motion as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 9.130(a)(4) for purposes of mandating review of'orders entered on authorized motions filed after a final order has been entered. Rather, the order on the motion is more in the nature of a non-final order denying a motion to dismiss an action, review of which is ordinarily to be delayed until disposition of the wife’s petition.
ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…l Bank, 625 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), not all orders entered after final judgment are individually appealable under 9.130(a)(4). See also, Sverdahl v. Farmers and Merchants Savings Bank, 582 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Peterson v. Peterson, 429 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); and Barnett Bank of Broward County v. Tabatchnick, 401 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Where an order entered after final judgment is merely prefatory to another order which will be appealable either as a final judgment or an…
-
Md. Cas. Co. & N. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Century Constr. Corp., 656 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…e unhappy. Because such an avenue was open for review, the court saw no reason to read rule 9.130(a)(4) as affording the appellants the right to an immediate appeal. Accord Winkelman v. Toll, 632 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Peterson v. Peterson, 429 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We find the reasoning of Gaché particularly apposite to the facts of this case. To hold that the order sought to be appealed here is immediately reviewable pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4) would lead inevitably to the result that a…
-
GACHÉ v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla., 625 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…ad language of the rule. As Judge Hurley pointed out, it makes no sense to allow an appeal from a discovery order entered post-judgment, when the same discovery order entered prior to judgment would not be ap-pealable. He cited Peterson v. Peterson, 429 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), in which a wife moved under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b) to set aside a final judgment of dissolution because of fraud. The trial court denied the husband’s motion to dismiss and the husband appealed pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4). This…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence