MOLLY DORSEY
v.
LORENZO HEARNS AND ROBERT SALTERS

Fla. 6th DCA | 2026-04-17
No. 2025-0381
2026 FL 4521 Florida District Court of Appeal, Sixth District (2026)

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

An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an appeal when the notice of appeal is filed more than 30 days after rendition of final orders, and lack of timely appeal of final orders deprives jurisdiction over nonfinal orders and orders denying motions for rehearing.

Headnotes

[1] A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of a final order to invoke appellate jurisdiction; failure to file timely deprives the appellate court of jur…

[2] Lack of timely appeal of a final order deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction to review nonfinal interlocutory orders that preceded the final order.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

“The untimely filing of a notice of appeal precludes the appellate court from exercising jurisdiction.”

Citation to Peltz v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1992)
Facts & Procedural History

Molly Dorsey appealed from orders entered by the Orange County Circuit Court in a probate case, including an Amended Order of Summary Administration a…

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.

Topics
Interlocutory Review Motion For Relief From Judgment Appellate Jurisdiction

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Interlocutory Review cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2025-0381 Lower Tribunal No. 2021-CP-003180

_____________________________

MOLLY DORSEY,

Appellant,

v.

LORENZO HEARNS and ROBERT SALTERS,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County.

Michael Murphy, Judge.

April 17, 2026 MIZE, J.

Appellant challenges a number of orders entered by the trial court in this probate case, but we do not have jurisdiction to review any of them.

The trial court’s Amended Order of Summary Administration rendered on

December 6, 2024 and its Amended Order Determining Homestead Status of Real

Property rendered on December 6, 2024 were both final orders. Because Appellant filed her notice of appeal on February 12, 2025, this appeal is untimely as it pertains to those orders. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) (“Jurisdiction of the court under this rule shall be invoked by filing a notice . . . within 30 days of rendition of the order . . .

.”); Peltz v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1992) (“The untimely filing of a notice of appeal precludes the appellate court from exercising jurisdiction.”).

Additionally, because Appellant did not timely appeal any final orders, this court likewise does not have jurisdiction to review the nonfinal orders that preceded the final orders.1 See Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. DeSouza, 343 So. 3d 1227, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“A timely notice of appeal of an appealable order gives us

jurisdiction to review earlier interlocutory orders.” (emphasis added)). This court also does not have jurisdiction to review any order denying a motion for rehearing of a nonfinal order. Morton & Oxley, Ltd. v. Charles S. Eby, M.D., P.A., 916 So. 2d

820, 821 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (“[A]n order denying a motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order is a nonappealable order.”).

Even if Appellant’s Motion to Set Aside filed January 13, 2025 could be construed as a motion for rehearing of the final orders under Florida Probate Rule

5.020(d), it did not toll Appellant’s deadline to appeal the final orders because it was not filed within fifteen days of rendition of the final orders.2 Fla. R. App. P.

9.020(h)(1)(B) (motion for rehearing can only toll rendition if “authorized and timely”); Fla. Prob. R. 5.020(d) (15-day deadline for motions for rehearing in probate proceedings).

Because Appellant’s appeal is untimely as to every order she challenges, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED.

TRAVER, C.J., and PRATT, J., concur.

Jane E. Carey, of Law Office of Jane E. Carey, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. Cristian A. Cantillana, Eric P. LaRue, II, and Addison B. Hicks, of The LaRue Firm, PLLC, Winter Park, for Appellees.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED

Footnotes
1 In denying Appellant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss, the trial court found that even if it treated Appellant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss as a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, the motion was due to be denied because Appellant did not meet its burden under Rule 1.540. It is unclear why the parties or the trial court believed that Rule 1.540 was at issue. The proceeding below was not an adversary proceeding under Florida Probate Rule 5.025. Therefore, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply to the proceeding. Fla. Prob. R. 5.010 (“The Florida Rules of Civil Procedure apply only as provided in these rules.”); Fla. Prob. R. 5.025(d) (making the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, except for Rule 1.525, applicable to adversary proceedings after service of formal notice by the petitioner). The Florida Probate Rules contain no analogue to Rule 1.540. Even if Rule 1.540 had applied to the proceeding below and even if we treated Appellant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540, we still would not have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order on the motion rendered on November 8, 2024. An order entered on a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540 would be a separately appealable nonfinal order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5). However, the appeal of that order would be untimely, as the notice of appeal was not filed until February 12, 2025. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b). Appellant’s motion for rehearing directed to this order could not toll Appellant’s deadline to appeal this order because “[m]otions for rehearing directed to” “[o]rders entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment” “are not authorized . . . and will not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.” Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5).
2 In the Motion to Set Aside, Appellant cited Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530. As stated supra in note 1, however, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure did not apply to the proceedings below.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw