CRYSTAL COLVIN
v.
RUDOLFO LONGORIA AND DIANA LONGORIA
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 appellate court dismissed an appeal because the appellant's notice of appeal was untimely filed. The court found that successive motions for rehearing were unauthorized and did not toll the deadline for filing the appeal, and orders denying rehearing are not separately reviewable.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the orders because the notice of appeal was untimely filed. Successive motions for rehearing are unauthorized and do not toll rendition, and orders denying rehearing are not independently reviewable.
[1] Successive motions for rehearing are unauthorized and do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b).
[2] Orders denying motions for rehearing are not independently reviewable on appeal and cannot be reviewed separately from the underlying order.
Previewing 2 of 2 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“Because Colvin did not file her notice of appeal challenging the court's August 28, 2022, order until more than thirty days after rendition of that order, her appeal is untimely.”
Establishes the primary reason for dismissal based on untimeliness.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCrystal Colvin sought review of four post-judgment orders in an eviction case, including an initial order and subsequent orders denying various motion…
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 Tolling Of Rendition cases and more on FLexlaw
RUDOLFO LONGORIA and DIANA LONGORIA; and UNKNOWN TENANT #1, Appellees. No. 2D22-3430 April 12, 2023 Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the County Court for Hillsborough County; J. Logan Murphy, Judge.
N. Burton Williams, Apollo Beach, for Appellant. Jonah Dickstein of Dickstein Law, Tampa, for Appellees Rudolfo Longoria and Diana Longoria. ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Crystal Colvin seeks review of four orders: a six-part August 28, 2022, order that disposed of multiple motions; a September 2, 2022, order denying Colvin's emergency motion for stay, which the trial court construed as a motion for rehearing directed to its August 28, 2022, order; a September 20, 2022, order denying Colvin's successive motion for rehearing; and a September 21, 2022, order denying yet another successive "emergency" motion for rehearing.
The trial court entered
each of these orders in postjudgment proceedings of an eviction case. We lack jurisdiction to review any of these orders. Because Colvin did not file her notice of appeal challenging the court's August 28, 2022, order until more than thirty days after rendition of that order, her appeal is untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). To the extent the court's August 28 order was a final order, Colvin's first motion for rehearing tolled rendition until September 2, 2022, but Colvin did not file her notice of appeal until October 18, 2022. Her successive motions for rehearing were both unauthorized and failed to further toll rendition. See, e.g., Mortellaro & Sinadinos, PLLC v. Countrywide Home Loans, 14 So. 3d 278, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Further, because orders on rehearing are not separately reviewable from the underlying order, we lack jurisdiction to review the trial court's September 20, 2022, order denying Colvin's successive motion for rehearing and its September 21, 2022, order denying Colvin's emergency motion for rehearing. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4); Grant v. Jones, 933 So. 2d 32, 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) ("[A]n order denying a motion for rehearing is not independently reviewable."); see also Jockey Club Condo. Apartments, Inc. v. B.V.K., LLC, 237 So. 3d 1118, 1122–23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (dismissing appeal and applying rule 9.130(a)(4)'s prohibition on separate review of orders on rehearing to an order disposing of a rehearing motion that failed to toll rendition of the underlying order).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. NORTHCUTT and LUCAS, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Carlson (Fla. 2d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Mortellaro & Sinadinos, PLLC v. Countrywide Home Loans, 14 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)
- Jockey Club Condo. Apts., Inc. v. B.V.K., LLC, 237 So. 3d 1118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)