THOMAS EDWARDS PEARSON AND CAROLYN RHODES, APPELLANTS,
v.
DIANE KLIPPSTEIN COBB AND ELIZABETH KLIPPSTEIN HANNA, 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 Fifth District Court of Appeal rejected appellees' motion to dismiss an appeal for lack of jurisdiction based on untimely filing. The court held that appellants' notice of appeal filed 29 days after an order denying their motion for rehearing was timely because the motion for rehearing tolled the appellate filing deadline.
The notice of appeal was timely filed. Although the probate court's order was technically non-final in nature, it was final for appellate review purposes. The authorized motion for rehearing tolled the time to file a notice of appeal until 30 days after the order denying the motion for rehearing, making the July 18 notice of appeal timely.
[1] Orders and judgments entered in probate proceedings that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested party are appealable.
[2] A timely motion for rehearing tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal of a final order.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Rule 5.100 of Florida Probate Rules states that all orders and judgments entered in probate proceedings which finally determine a right or an obligation of an interested party are appealable as provided in rule 9.110(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.”
Establishes the basis for determining whether an order in probate is appealable
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA probate court entered an order on May 19, 1997, distributing estate assets. Appellants moved for rehearing on May 29, 1997. The probate court denied…
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
ANTOON, Judge.
This matter comes to us on appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Specifically, the appellees assert that this appeal was not timely filed. We deny the motion because the instant notice of appeal was timely filed.
In the proceedings before the probate court, there was a dispute regarding the distribution of certain assets from the estate. Upon review of the matter, the court determined that part of the assets of the estate should be distributed to the appellees, and on May 19, 1997, the court entered an order accordingly. Ten days later, on May 29, 1997, the appellants moved for rehearing. On June 19, 1997, the probate court entered an order denying the motion for rehearing. Twenty-nine days later, on July 18, 1997, the appellants filed their notice of appeal.
Rule 5.100 of Florida Probate Rules states that all orders and judgments entered in probate proceedings which finally determine a right or an obligation of an interested party are appealable as provided in rule 9.110(a)(2) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 9.110(a)(2) similarly states that appeal proceedings to review “final orders of lower tribunals” include review of orders entered in probate proceedings that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person. Construing these rules together, we conclude that, although the notice of appeal referred to the trial court’s May 19 order as “non-final,” it was final for purposes of appellate review.
With regard to the question of whether the appellants’ timely motion for rehearing tolled the time for filing a notice of appeal, rule 9.020(h) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that an authorized motion for rehearing tolls the time to file a notice of appeal of a final order. Rule .5.020(d) of Florida’s Probate Rules appears to authorize the filing of a motion for rehearing on any order or judgment entered in a probate proceeding. As a result, appellants’ May 29 motion for rehearing tolled the running of the time for filing a notice of appeal until July 19, 1997, thirty days after the date the order denying the motion for rehearing was entered. Accordingly, appellants’ July 18 notice of appeal was timely.
Accordingly, the appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied.
MOTION DENIED.
GRIFFIN, C.J., and HARRIS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Siegel v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, 71 So. 3d 935 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…without further comment on the other issues raised on appeal. We dismiss the “cross-appeal” as untimely. The cross-appealed order was a final order entered in 2006 which should have been appealed within 30 days of its rendition. See Pearson v. Cobb, 701 So. 2d 649, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). Even if it were not untimely, we would find no error in the court’s construction of the settlement agreement. In conclusion, we reverse for a trial on the issues addressed in this opinion. We have determined that the trial…