RE ESTATE OF WILLIAM MICHAEL GODLEY, DECEASED
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Reconsideration cases and more on FLexlaw
[*47] PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek a writ of prohibition. Respondent filed a motion in a probate proceeding to extend the time for filing independent actions on their claims against the estate. The motion was denied. A motion for rehearing was denied on October 18, 1986. Respondents did not appeal but filed a motion to reconsider, which was granted on November 25, 1986.
The petition for a writ of prohibition is granted. The trial court lost jurisdiction following denial of the motion for rehearing. Cf. Shelby Mutual Insurance Company of Shelby Ohio v. Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970); Florida National Bank v. Domanska, 486 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Markevitch v. Van Harren, 429 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), appeal after remand, 447 So. 2d 332, rev. denied, 456 So. 2d 1182 (Fla.1984).
We therefore quash the order of November 25, 1986.
DOWNEY, LETTS and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cap. Bank v. The Honorable Francis X. Knuck, 537 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…rren, 429 So. 2d at 1255. In sum, the lower court could do nothing after the appropriate disposition of the single authorized post-trial motion.2 Prohibition will therefore be granted to preclude its ongoing attempt to go further. Estate of Godley, 508 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Florida Nat’l Bank v. Domanska, 486 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). PROHIBITION GRANTED.3 .The fact that the order was purportedly "without prejudice" does not affect this conclusion. Derma Lift Salon, Inc. v. Swanko, 419 So.…
-
Pressler v. Pressler, 588 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)…RIAM. This petition for writ of prohibition is granted as the trial court has lost jurisdiction to consider the motion for rehearing which was untimely filed by respondent. See Roosa v. Roosa, 519 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Estate of Godley, 508 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). The trial court is hereby prohibited from proceeding further in this cause and the previously [*75] entered order granting rehearing is quashed. ANSTEAD, WARNER and POLEN, JJ„ concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. OF Shelby v. Tillman Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970)
- Fla. Nat'l Bank v. Danuta T. Domanska, 486 So. 2d 1384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Inaky Markevitch and Serena Markevitch v. van Harren, 429 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- van Harren v. Inaky Markevitch and Serena Markevitch, 447 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)