WALTER J. GATTI, APPELLANT,
v.
CLARA M. GATTI, APPELLEE
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 court held that the appeal from the partial final judgment was not timely filed and therefore must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The husband moved to set aside a prior order awarding fees based on newly discovered evidence. The trial court granted the motion as to accountant's f…
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 Motion To Set Aside Order cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge.
On May 20, 1982, the husband moved to set aside a final order awarding attorney’s, accountant’s and appraiser’s fees on the ground of newly discovered evidence pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). On July 6, 1982, the trial judge granted the motion to set aside the order as to the accountant’s fees and denied the motion as to attorney’s fees and appraiser’s fees. On September 7, 1982, the trial court entered a partial final judgment against the husband for the attorney’s fees.
We conclude that this appeal from the partial final judgment was not timely and dismiss. The original order awarding fees was entered August 7, 1981 and an appeal taken therefrom. The order was affirmed by this court in Gatti v. Gatti, 413 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The husband did not attack the propriety of the trial court’s refusal to set aside the order under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).1 The court’s refusal to set aside the order was appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5). As the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after this order, it was not timely and we have no jurisdiction to consider this matter. ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . This is the order that the husband should have appealed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gatti v. Gatti, 431 So. 2d 355 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., Judge. DISMISSED. See Gatti v. Gatti, 431 So. 2d 354 (Fla. 5th DCA, 1983). ORFINGER, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Gatti v. Gatti, 413 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)