KELVONE A. WILLIAMS
v.
IRENE LOMELI, DECEASED, AND MICAELA LOMELI
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.
Appellant challenges a trial court's order granting a motion to intervene. The appellate court dismisses the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was filed 36 days after the order, exceeding the 30-day deadline required for certiorari review of interlocutory orders granting intervention.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the order because the notice of appeal was untimely. A motion for reconsideration or rehearing of a nonfinal order does not toll the 30-day time limit for filing a certiorari petition, and the 30-day deadline is jurisdictional.
[1] An interlocutory order granting a motion to intervene is reviewable by certiorari.
[2] A petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within thirty days of the order being reviewed.
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 intelligence“A petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within thirty days of the order being reviewed.”
Establishes the jurisdictional deadline for certiorari review
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered an order granting Appellee's motion to intervene on October 25, 2022. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration or rehearin…
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 Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
LAMBERT, C.J.
In this appeal, Appellant challenges the trial court’s order granting Appellee’s motion to intervene in the litigation below. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.040(c), we treat this appeal as a petition for certiorari review, see Gil de Lamadrid v. De Jesus Rivera, 272 So. 3d 845, 847 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (“Certiorari lies to review an interlocutory order granting a motion to intervene.” (citing Superior Fence & Rail of N. Fla. v. Lucas, 35 So. 3d 104, 105 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010); In re J.P., 12 So. 3d 253, 254 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009))); and, for the following reasons, we dismiss this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.
The order granting intervention was rendered by the trial court on October 25, 2022. Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration or rehearing of this order, which the trial court denied. Thereafter, on November 30, 2022, Appellant filed his notice of appeal of the October 25, 2022 order. A petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within thirty days of the order being reviewed. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(c)(1). This thirty-day time limit is jurisdictional such that the failure to timely file the petition requires a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. See Wibbens v. State, Dep’t of High. Saf. & Motor Veh., Bureau of Driver Impv’t, 956 So. 2d 503, 504 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (citing Hofer v. Gil De Rubio, 409 So. 2d 527, 528 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)).
The order entered here granting intervention is a nonfinal order. A motion for rehearing directed to such an order does not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal or a certiorari petition. See Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (citations omitted); Johnson v. Snyder, 296 So. 3d 547, 549 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). Resultingly, Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed thirty-six days after the rendition of the order granting intervention, making it untimely.
DISMISSED. EDWARDS and SOUD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In the Interest of J.P. v. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. Ad Litem Program, 12 So. 3d 253 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Emil Albert Dealto v. The Honorable Richard B. Keating, 409 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Wibbens v. State, 956 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- de Lamadrid v. Matilde de Jesus Rivera, 272 So. 3d 845 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)