MORRIS WETHERINGTON, APPELLANT,
v.
JACK R. MINCH, APPELLEE
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.
Court dismissed appeal for lack of jurisdiction because appellant failed to timely appeal the original foreclosure judgment and the amended judgment did not materially change it.
An appeal of an amended final judgment that only changes non-substantive matters like sale date and interest does not extend the time to appeal the original judgment.
[1] An amendment to a final judgment that changes only non-substantive matters such as sale date and interest does not toll the time for filing an appeal of the original judg…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“An amendment of a final judgment which does not change matters of substance or resolve a genuine ambiguity does not toll the time within which the parties must seek review.”
Court explaining the rule that non-substantive amendments do not extend appeal deadlines.
Appellant Wetherington appealed a foreclosure judgment by Jack Minch. An amended final judgment changed only the sale date and awarded additional inte…
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 Amended Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We dismiss the instant appeal because we lack jurisdiction. Appellant did not timely appeal the final judgment of foreclosure, and the amended final judgment did not materially change the original final judgment in that the amended judgment only changed the sale date and awarded additional interest. An amendment of a final judgment which does not change matters of substance or resolve a genuine ambiguity does not toll the time within which the parties must seek review. St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla.1971); Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Automotive Fiberglass, Inc., 417 So. 2d 272, 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). In First Continental Corp. v. Khan, 605 So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 613 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1992), we held that appeals of an amended final judgment “shall be limited to the party adversely affected by the amendment and should involve only those issues affected by the amendment.” In this case, appellant challenges neither the additional interest nor the new sale date as set forth in the amended final judgment.
Accordingly, we dismiss this untimely-filed appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1
APPEAL DISMISSED.
HARRIS, C.J., and PETERSON and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . We note that, if we had jurisdiction, we would affirm the trial court’s rulings in this matter because we conclude that appellant's claims of error possess no merit.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Greznev v. Valeriy Greznev, 164 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Wetherington v. Minch, 637 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (dismissing appeal as untimely where “the amended final judgment did not materially change the original final judgment and therefore did not restart the time to bring an appeal”). WOLF, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Gold King Apts., LLC v. Dumornay, 190 So. 3d 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…Churchville v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (“An amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial, insubstantial way does not restart the clock to file an appeal.”);' Wetherington v. Minch, 637 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Because Gold King filed its notice of appeal more than thirty days after the rendition -of the original final judgment, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Rice, 939 So. 2d at 1145. Accordingly, we d…
-
Friend v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co., 964 So. 2d 171 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)…s summary final judgment of foreclosure. Because his notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the rendition of the judgment we conclude that this court is without jurisdiction and therefore, this case is dismissed. Wetherington v. Minch, 637 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Co. v. Freeman, 884 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); and American Auto. Assn: v. C.D.S. Towing & Recovery, Inc., 805 So. 2d 1064 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). The promissory note and mortgage provide for…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- ST. Moritz Hotel v. Jimmy C. Daughtry & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 249 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1971)
- Daytona Migi Corp. v. Daytona Auto. Fiberglass Inc., 417 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- First Cont'l Corp. v. Bashir H. Khan, 605 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)