JULIAN DOMINGUEZ, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MAURICE S. BARAKAT, J.D.M., 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 Third District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal as untimely because the appellants failed to file within the required time period. The motion for rehearing was untimely served eleven days after the final judgment was filed, beyond the ten-day limit, and the five-day extension for mailed service did not apply to the judgment filing deadline.
The appeal is dismissed as untimely. The time for service of the motion for rehearing was not extended by the five-day extension period under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(e) because that rule applies only when the notice or paper is served by mail after a prescribed period following service of something else, not when running from the filing of a judgment. The ten-day service requirement of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(b) runs from the filing of the judgment, and the untimely motion for rehearing did not suspend the judgment or extend the appellate filing deadline.
[1] A motion for rehearing must be served within ten days of the filing of the final judgment.
[2] The five-day extension for service by mail under Fla.R.Civ.P. …
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the time for service was not extended by the five days provided by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(e) because the final judgment was mailed to counsel. As the rule specifically states, it applies only when there is 'a prescribed period after ... service ... and the notice or [paper] is served [supplied] Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(e)'”
Establishes that the five-day extension does not apply when time runs from judgment filing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was filed on May 24, 1991. The appellees served a motion for rehearing on June 4, 1991, which was eleven days after the judgment was …
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.
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appeal is dismissed as untimely because the rendition of the final judgment, which was filed on May 24, 1991, was not postponed under Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g) by the appellees’ motion for rehearing. This is true, in turn, because that motion was untimely served eleven days later, on June 4, 1991, beyond the ten-day limitation provided by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(b). Contrary to the appellants’ position, the time for service was not extended by the five days provided by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(e) because the final judgment was mailed to counsel. As the rule specifically states, it applies only when there is “a prescribed period after ... service ... and the notice or paper is served supplied] Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(e). In contrast, the ten-day service requirement of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(b) runs from “the filing of the judgment.” [e.s.] See Grabarnick v. Florida Homeowners Ass’n, 419 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1982);1 D’Best Laundromat, Inc. v. Janis, 508 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Wilson v. Clark, 414 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); see also Shields v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 513 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Bouchard v. State Dep’t of Business Regulation, 448 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). by mail.” [emphasis
For this reason, this appeal, filed on November 20, 1991, only after the untimely motion for rehearing had been denied on October 24, 1991, was taken more than thirty days after the “unsuspended” rendition of the final judgment. -Therefore, the appeal is
Dismissed.
. The appellants’ reliance on Grabamick for the claim that the rehearing time runs from the recording of the judgment on May 28, 1991, is misplaced because 1.530(b), which had referred to the "entry” of the judgment, has since been specifically amended to read "filing."
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Jpmorgan Chase Bank v. Svitlana Bigley, 120 So. 3d 1265 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…If in fact the motion for reconsideration was untimely, the notice of appeal (which was filed more than thirty days after rendition of the final judgment) is likewise untimely and constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect. See Dominguez v. Barakat, 609 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Because this issue involves the construction and interpretation of the rules of civil procedure, our standard of review is de novo. Sata Motor Freight Line, Inc. v. Reid, 930 So. 2d 598 (Fla.2006). Motions for reconsideration ar…
-
Leisuris R. Galvez v. Ramos, 941 So. 2d 475 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…there are none applicable to the case before us. In addition, Florida law is clear that the time for service of a motion for rehearing is not extended by the five days provided by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e). See Dominguez v. Barakat, 609 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The facts here establish that service of Ramos’ Motion for Rehearing was untimely because it was served more than ten days after the date the trial court entered Summary Final Judgment for Galvez. Accordingly, the trial court did…
-
Peters v. Richard "Dick" Kellman, 53 So. 3d 1171 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. Cf. Ashley v. Moore, 742 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Dominguez v. Barakat, 609 So. 2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). BENTON, C.J., DAVIS and THOMAS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Wilson v. Clark, 414 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)
- Conrad F. and Shirley Bouchard v. State, 448 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- D'Best Laundromat, Inc. v. Janis, 508 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Shields v. Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 513 So. 2d 1363 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Grabarnick v. Fla. Homeowners Ass'n OF N. Broward, Inc., 419 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 1982)