SETH SCHUYLER, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Seigler v. Bell, 148 So. 3d 473 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)
  …hearing” or “reconsideration” aimed at final judgments shall be treated as rule 1.530 motions for rehearing, while motions aimed at nonfinal orders shall be treated as motions for reconsideration. See Magnum Towing, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 781 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (treating a motion that was “mislabeled” a motion for “reconsideration” as a rule 1.530 motion for “rehearing” because it was aimed at a final order (citing Rebholz v. Floyd, 327 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976))); Bettez v. Cit…
• Cardiosonx Labs., Inc. v. Aguadilla Med. Servs., Inc., 100 So. 3d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
  …vor of Aguadilla and remand for the trial court to consider and rule on Cardiosonx’s Motion to Set Aside the Clerk’s Default. Reversed and remanded. . We have jurisdiction to review this appeal. See Magnum Towing, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 781 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (even though appellants' motion was mislabeled the motion was in substance a proper motion for rehearing); Nardi v. Cont’l Nat’l Bank, 559 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (treating appellants' “motion to set aside final summary judg…
• Celeste Rossi v. Rossi, 169 So. 3d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)
  …equitable distribution issues between the parties.” A trial court’s determination that a motion or other filing is improper, as labeled, is a question of law and is accordingly reviewed de novo. See Magnum Towing, Inc. v. Sunbeam Television Corp., 781 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). Where it is apparent that an improperly-labeled motion is “intended to operate” as an authorized motion, an appellate court must consider the motion as if it were properly labeled. Olson v. Olson, 704 So. 2d 208, 210 (Fla. 5…

Authorities Cited

• State v. Leroux, 689 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 1996)
• Llerena v. State, 696 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)