SUSANA INES BASTIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
PABLO RAUL VITAVER, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appealability Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant Susana Ines Bastida appeals from an order of the circuit court which denies appellant’s motion for rehearing and clarification of an order dismissing without prejudice her motion to vacate a final judgment filed pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540. The appellee Pablo Raul Vitaver moves to dismiss this appeal. At the oral argument on this motion, appellant asserted that she sought solely to appeal the above order on rehearing and did not seek review of the order dismissing without prejudice her 1.540 motion to vacate. We grant the motion to dismiss upon a holding that the order sought to be reviewed is plainly a non-final order which is not appealable under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a), as authorized by Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.
We note, however, that appellant has filed an amended motion to vacate under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, as authorized by the above order of dismissal without prejudice, which amended motion is presently pending in the trial court. Any order finally disposing of this amended motion would be appealable as a final order under the method prescribed by Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(5), although the time for taking such an appeal would not be stayed by a motion for rehearing filed thereafter. Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986). Moreover, the appellant on such an appeal would be permitted to assert as error the denial of her motion for rehearing and clarification from which she abortively seeks review in the instant appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Forrest, 682 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…not toll the time for filing an appeal. Richardson v. Watson, 611 So. 2d 1254, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). The order denying the motion for rehearing is not an appealable order. Richardson, 611 So. 2d at 1255; Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); APPEAL DISMISSED. GLICKSTEIN, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.…
-
Shell v. Foulkes, 19 So. 3d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…from order of County Court suppressing evidence). . Khem-Troll Inc. v. Edelman, 351 So. 2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (order disposing of motion for relief under rule 1.540(b) is final order "subject to plenary review”); see also Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (same); Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986) (same). . The County Court continued to have jurisdiction over the eviction action and should not have dis…
-
Solman-Staropoli v. Califano, 645 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…urt does not have jurisdiction to review an order on a motion for rehearing of an interlocutory order because this is not one of the non-final orders available for appeal under rule 9.130(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Wharton v. DuBose, 458 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying the motion for improper venue and dismiss the appeal of the order denying the motion for rehearing. STONE and WARNER, JJ., concur…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)