DANIEL A. WICK, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ALEXANDER S. RITTER, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL J. SPECTOR, APPELLEE
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 court held that the notice of appeal was timely filed because the order of dismissal was a final appealable order and the motion for rehearing was authorized and suspended rendition.
[1] An order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is a non-final, non-appealable order.
[2] A trial court retains the discretion to reconsider its own interlocutory orders prior to the entry of final judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant moved to dismiss for failure to prosecute, which the trial court initially denied. The defendant then moved for rehearing, which the tri…
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 Rendition Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Appellee Michael Spector, defendant below, has moved to dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. As we conclude that appellant Daniel A. Wick’s notice of appeal was timely filed, we deny the motion to dismiss.
In the trial court Spector moved to dismiss for want of prosecution, and the trial court denied the motion. Spector moved for rehearing. The trial court granted rehearing and dismissed the action for failure to prosecute. Wick then filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied, and thereafter filed a notice of appeal. Spector has moved to dismiss the appeal, contending that Wick’s motion for rehearing was unauthorized and that the appeal time expired while the motion for rehearing was pending. We disagree.
Spector’s original motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute was denied. It is settled that an order denying a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is a non-final non-appealable order. Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales del Ecuador, 530 So. 2d 971, 973 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (en banc). After the denial of the motion to dismiss, the action remained pending under the jurisdiction of the trial court.
Spector next filed what he denominated a motion for rehearing. This was in reality a motion for reconsideration which the trial court had the authority in its discretion to consider because it retains control of its own interlocutory orders prior to the entry of final judgment. See Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386, 1388 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986). When the trial court upon reconsideration granted the motion to dismiss, it entered, for the first time, a final appealable order. Wick then filed a motion for rehearing, which was both timely and authorized. That motion suspended rendition of the order dismissing the action until denial of rehearing. See Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). As the notice of appeal was filed within the required period after denial of rehearing, it was timely. The motion to dismiss is therefore denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seaescape, Ltd., Inc. v. Maximum Mktg. Exposure, Inc., 568 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…g counsel prior to submission to the judge, so as to assure that the order conforms to the judge’s ruling. . Although denominated a motion for rehearing, it was in reality a motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order. See Wick v. Spector, 562 So. 2d 402, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386, 1388 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986). .The exception, on the unique facts presented in Bowling, was for an agency coupled with an i…
-
Johnson v. Girtman, 44 So. 3d 261 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…lowing in its place. Dismissed. See Traylor Bros., Inc. v. Shipman, 758 So. 2d 91 (Fla.2000) (order denying a motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.070(j) is not an appealable non-final order); see also Wick v. Spector, 562 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (order denying motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute is a non-final, non-appealable order). GROSS, C.J., WARNER and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales del Ecuador, 530 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)