DANNY FREEMAN, PATTY FREEMAN, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LORETTA PERDUE, ET AL., APPELLEES
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 a motion for rehearing directed to an interlocutory order does not toll the time for filing an interlocutory appeal, and thus the appeal was untimely.
The trial court denied a motion to dissolve an injunction, and the appellant filed a motion for rehearing. The trial court then denied the motion for …
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 Appeal Time cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
We dismiss this appeal based on a lack of jurisdiction. On or about April 25, 1991, the trial court rendered a non-final order denying a motion to dissolve an injunction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). On May 3, 1991, Freeman, et al. (hereinafter Freeman) filed a motion for rehearing specifically pursuant to Rule 1.530, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which deals in part with rehearings directed to “judgments.” Finally, on May 23, 1991, the trial court denied Freeman’s motion for rehearing and Freeman filed a notice of appeal on June 21, 1991.
It is well established that there is no provision in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure for a motion for rehearing directed to an interlocutory order. Rule 1.530(a) and (b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, authorizes the filing of motions for rehearing on matters heard without a jury only to judgments rendered by the court and not to interlocutory orders. Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972); Gordon v. Barley, 383 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Business Cards Tomorrow, Inc. v. Advisory Board, Inc., 379 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Home News Publishing Company v. U-M Publishing, Inc., 246 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
In the instant case, the notice of appeal was not timely. The order denying Freeman’s motion to dissolve the injunction was clearly an interlocutory order and a motion for rehearing directed to such an order does not operate to toll the time for the filing of an interlocutory appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
GRIFFIN and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…hearing directed to a non-final order, such as the order in the instant case, is not authorized under the rules and does not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal. See Bennett v. Bennett, 645 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Freeman v. Perdue, 588 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); see also Wagner; National Assurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Kelley, 702 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Forrest, 682 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Longo; Smith v. Weede, 433 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).…
-
Adlow, Inc. v. Mauda, Inc., 632 So. 2d 714 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…er pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4), the appeal is untimely because a motion for rehearing does not toll the time for filing an interlocutory [*715] appeal. Blattman, 592 So. 2d 269; Welch, 590 So. 2d 1098 (citations omitted); Freeman v. Perdue, 588 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Bell v. Geist, 531 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988) (since the motion for rehearing was not authorized because the order was a non-final order, the time to appeal was not tolled by the motion and the appeal must be filed within 30…
-
Bennett v. Bennett, 645 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…eckwith, 624 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). The time for filing a notice of appeal from a non-final order is thirty days. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(b). Motions for rehearing of non-final orders do not toll the time for taking an appeal. Freeman v. Perdue, 588 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Because the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days from the date the order appealed was entered, it is untimely. We lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- Home News Publ'g Co. v. U-M Publ'g, Inc., 246 So. 2d 117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Gordon v. Barley, 383 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Frano v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 379 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)