JIM WHARTON AND ETH-WHA, INC., APPELLANTS,
v.
GEORGIA F. DUBOSE, APPELLEE
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
We dismiss this appeal of the trial court’s order granting a motion for rehearing because it is an interlocutory appeal of which this court lacks jurisdiction. The First District Court of Appeal dismissed a similar appeal on the same ground in Ford Motor Company v. Averill, 355 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). We are aware of no change in the law since the Averill decision that would affect the outcome.
Appellant contends that an order granting a motion for rehearing either is a final order and thus immediately appealable, or is the equivalent of an order for a new trial, governed by section 59.04, Florida Statutes (1983), and post-Averill revisions of Rules 9.130(a)(4) and 9.140(c)(1)(C), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, as explicated by In re Emergency Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure, 381 So. 2d 1370 (Fla.1980). We are not persuaded. Grant of a motion for rehearing is clearly not a final order, nor is it within the contemplation of the above authorities cited by appellant. Because it also falls outside the rubrics of Rule 9.130(a)(3), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, which specifies imme diately appealable non-final orders, we cannot hear this appeal at this time.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peacon v. Peacon, 578 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Bell v. Bell, 307 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Accordingly, the trial court's subsequent denial of the former husband’s motion for rehearing was also not an appealable order. See Wharton v. DuBose, 458 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (grant of motion for rehearing not a final order). On July 5, 1990, the trial court entered an order on the master’s report, ratifying and approving the master’s findings and recommendations. Thus, the Notice of Appeal filed on J…
-
Solman-Staropoli v. Califano, 645 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order because this is not one of the non-final orders available for appeal under rule 9.130(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Wharton v. DuBose, 458 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion for improper venue and dismiss the appeal of the order denying the motion for rehearing. STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Robbins v. State, 381 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1980)
- In re Emergency Amendments to Rules of Appellate Procedure, 381 So. 2d 1370 (Fla. 1980)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Averill, 355 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)