FRANK A. ROBERTS, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
INTERNATIONAL SPEEDWAY CORPORATION, ETC., APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1989-04-27
No. 88-1780
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur.
542 So. 2d 446 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1989) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 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.

Synopsis

Roberts appealed a trial court order denying his motion to assess interest against International Speedway Corporation for allegedly failing to timely tender a settlement payment. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Roberts' motion for reconsideration was filed 22 days after the final order, outside the 10-day deadline, making the notice of appeal untimely.


Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Roberts' motion for reconsideration was untimely filed 22 days after the final order instead of within 10 days, and therefore it did not toll the rendition of the final order, making the notice of appeal filed more than 30 days after the order.


Headnotes

[1] An order denying a motion to assess interest is a final order from which an appeal may be taken.

[2] A motion for rehearing must be served within ten days of the rendition of a final order.

Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Key Quotes

“Because there remained nothing else to be done in the cause, judicial labor was at an end and the order was a final order.”

Establishes that the trial court's order denying interest was a final order triggering appellate deadlines.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Roberts settled negligence and wrongful death actions against International Speedway Corporation for $165,000. After settlement, Roberts filed a motio…

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.


Opinion of the Court
SHARP, Chief Judge.

SHARP, Chief Judge.

Roberts, individually and as the personal representative of his son’s estate (Stuart Mills Roberts), appeals the lower court’s order denying his motion to assess interest against International Speedway Corporation, pursuant to section 627.4265, Florida Statutes (1987)1 and common law contract principles. After settlement in the negligence and wrongful death actions, Roberts filed a motion for interest alleging that appellee failed to tender payment of the settlement amount in a timely manner. Roberts argues that an insurance company was the silent and controlling partner to the $165,000 settlement and it was referenced in the release. We do not reach the merits of this case, however, because we find we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

On May 3, 1988 the trial court denied the motion to assess interest with prejudice. Because there remained nothing else to be done in the cause, judicial labor was at an end and the order was a final order. See Gore v. Hansen, 59 So. 2d 538 (Fla.1952). Roberts then had ten days to timely serve a motion for rehearing. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.530(b). Not until May 25, 1988, twenty-two days after the final order was rendered, did Roberts serve a “Motion for Reconsideration and for Entry of Final Judgment.” He alleged that the court misapplied the statute and failed to address his alternate common-law argument supporting the motion. Although the final order did not specifically address the common law argument, the order recites that the court heard argument of counsel and was otherwise fully advised in the premises. It cannot be assumed the trial court did not consider all arguments raised when the trial court ruled on the motion. Cf. R.W. King Construction Company, Inc. v. City of Melbourne, 384 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (appellate court would presume that trial court ruled correctly in allowing fees for both ordinary and extraordinary services in absence of transcript).

Although styled a “Motion for Reconsideration,” the effect of Robert’s motion was to seek rehearing. Because the motion was untimely it did not toll rendition of the final order. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). Thus, the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after rendition of the final order. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . Section 627.4265, Florida Statutes (1987) provides:

In any case in which a person and an insurer have agreed in writing to the settlement of a claim, the insurer shall tender payment according to the terms of the agreement no later than 20 days after such settlement is reached. The tender of payment may be conditioned upon execution by such person of a release mutually agreeable to the insurer and the claimant, but if the payment is not tendered within 20 days, or such other date as the agreement may provide, it shall bear interest at a rate of 12 percent per year from the date of the agreement; however, if the tender of payment is conditioned upon the execution of a release, the interest shall not begin to accrue until the executed release is tendered to the insurer.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Harris v. Harris, 670 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
    …r rehearing stays rendition until the trial court énters a written order disposing of the pending motion. Fla.RApp.P. 9.020(g)(1). An untimely motion for rehearing does not stay the rendition of the judgment. Roberts v. International Speedway Corp., 542 So. 2d 446, 447 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). In this case, assuming without deciding that the former wife’s motion for rehearing was authorized, it did not toll the time for appealing the order because it was served by delivery 13 days after the judgment was filed. Ac…
  • Deleon v. Crosby, 726 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
    …PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.110(b); Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(h); Harris v. Harris, 670 [*345] So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Roberts v. International Speedway Corp., 542 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989). GOSHORN, PETERSON and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw