FRANCES PREYER, IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS THE PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF TORI PREYER AND SHAYLA PREYER, MINORS, APPELLANT,
v.
ARIES INSURANCE COMPANY, 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.
The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction regarding the summary judgment orders because the notice of appeal was untimely filed, though the appeal could proceed regarding the separately appealable attorney's fees and costs orders.
An appellant's untimely motion for rehearing does not extend the jurisdictional time limit for filing a notice of appeal from a final summary judgment order.
[1] An untimely motion for rehearing does not extend the jurisdictional deadline for filing a notice of appeal from a final, appealable order.
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 appellant's assertion that he did not have timely notice of the entry of an appealable order does not extend the jurisdictional time limit for appeal”
The court cited Snelson v. Snelson to establish that lack of notice does not extend the time to appeal.
Frances Preyer, individually and as guardian of two minor children, appealed four trial court orders, including an order denying her motion for summar…
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 Insurance Claim Dispute cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having considered appellant’s response to the show cause order issued April 5, 2000, the order is hereby discharged. Appellant has' sought review of four trial court orders. Although the Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is a final, appealable order, appellant’s untimely motion for rehearing did not delay rendition of the order. Consequently, appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. The appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction with regard to the Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dated July 1, 1999, and the Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion for Rehearing, dated February 10, 2000. See Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)(holding that an appellant’s as sertion that he did not have timely notice of the entry of an appealable order does not extend the jurisdictional time limit for appeal). The appeal, insofar as it is from the orders awarding attorney’s fees and costs, can proceed because such orders are independently appealable. See Saye v. Pieschacon, 750 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
DISMISSED in part.
JOANOS, ALLEN, and KAHN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Snelson v. Snelson, 440 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Degregorio v. State, 750 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)