TERRY E. BELL, SR., AND PHYLLIS BELL, APPELLANTS,

v.

SIDNEY R. GEIST, JR., AS GENERAL PARTNER OF NATIONAL FACTORS, LTD., AND SIDNEY R. GEIST, JR., INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1988-09-22

No. 88-689

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.

531 So. 2d 406 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1988) Positive Treatment

Cited by 10 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a motion for rehearing does not extend the time to file a notice of appeal for a nonfinal order.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendants appealed a nonfinal order granting discovery. They filed a motion for rehearing after the order was rendered. The appeal was dismissed as u…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Topics

Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 Common Law Certiorari Non-Final Order Timeliness Of Appeal

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

DANIEL, Judge.

Terry E. Bell, Sr. and Phyllis Bell, defendants below, appealed a nonfinal order granting discovery incident to the issue of punitive damages. We dismissed the appeal without opinion upon motion of the appellees. The Bells moved for rehearing.

The motion to dismiss the appeal was granted because the notice of appeal was not timely. It also sought review of a nonfinal order not within the listing of non-final orders designated as reviewable by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. For the notice of appeal to have been considered as a petition for common law certio- rari it, too, must have been filed within thirty days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.1 Fla.R. of App.P. 9.110(c).

A motion for rehearing2 is authorized only as to a final order. When addressed to a nonfinal order, it does not delay rendition of that order. Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972); Williams v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services, 468 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Hofer v. DeRubio, 409 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days from rendition of the order sought to be reviewed requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

DENIED.

COBB and COWART, JJ., concur. . We do not mean to imply the nonfinal order appealed from would have been reviewable by certiorari. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla.1987); Humana of Florida, Inc. v. Evans, 519 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Short v. Fleetwood Motor Homes of Pennsylvania, Inc., 511 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987).

. A motion for rehearing addressed to the adverse order granting discovery was filed by defendants below.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

Adlow, Inc. v. Mauda, Inc., 632 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)

…is untimely because a motion for rehearing does not toll the time for filing an interlocutory [*715] appeal. Blattman, 592 So. 2d 269; Welch, 590 So. 2d 1098 (citations omitted); Freeman v. Perdue, 588 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Bell v. Geist, 531 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (since the motion for rehearing was not authorized because the order was a non-final order, the time to appeal was not tolled by the motion and the appeal must be filed within 30 days of the rendition of the order). The notice of…
Murray Blattman under that certain Tr. Agreement dated December 18 v. Williams Island Assocs., Ltd., 592 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)

…e it was untimely filed more than thirty days after the rendition of such order; the defendants’ motion for rehearing could not stay the rendition of this nonfinal order. See Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Assoc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972); Bell v. Geist, 531 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988); Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales de Ecuador, 530 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). The first two orders under review, as stated above, are affirmed. The appeal from the third order under review, as stated above, is…
Baird v. Vivien Hulsey Baird, 629 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)

…etting the temporary support was rendered on March 1, 1993 but the notice of appeal was not filed until May 1993. The motion for reconsideration of the award of temporary support filed after the March order did not stay rendition. See Bell v. Geist, 531 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). The order of contempt is vacated for the reason that, while the trial court made a written finding that Baird was able to pay $550 per month temporary child support, it did not find that Baird had the ability to pay the purge…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
Humana OF Fla., Inc. v. Evans, 519 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
Litem v. Maritz GIL DE Rubio and Ferdinand Gil De Rubio, 409 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
Emil Albert Dealto v. The Honorable Richard B. Keating, 409 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
Williams v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 468 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
Short v. Fleetwood Motor Homes OF Pa., Inc., 511 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw