NORMA E. TEDDER, PH.D., APPELLANT,
v.
VISUALLY IMPAIRED PERSONS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC., 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.
Dr. Norma Tedder appealed an order granting a new trial to her opponent, Visually Impaired Persons of Southwest Florida, Inc. The appellate court dismissed the appeal as untimely because Tedder's notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the original order granting the new trial, and her intervening motion to amend the order did not toll the time for appeal.
The appeal was dismissed as untimely. The motion to amend was an unauthorized motion that did not toll the rendition of the original new trial order because orders granting new trial are not final orders and are not subject to motions that toll their finality.
[1] An order granting a new trial is not a final order for the purpose of tolling the time to file a notice of appeal.
[2] A motion to amend an order granting a new trial, which seeks to have the court specify grounds for the order, is an unauthorized motion that does not toll the rendition o…
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“Because an order granting new trial is not a final order, Tedder's motion to amend was 'unauthorized' and did not toll the rendition of the original order for new trial.”
Establishes that motions to amend are unauthorized post-new trial motions that cannot extend the appeal deadline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter an unfavorable jury verdict, VIP filed a timely motion for new trial arguing that Tedder had failed to produce evidence of damages. On June 21, …
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.
MENENDEZ, MANUEL, JR., Associate Judge.
Norma Tedder challenges an order granting appellee’s motion for new trial. Because Ms. Tedder filed her notice of appeal more than thirty days after entry of the order granting new trial, we dismiss this appeal as untimely.
After an unfavorable jury verdict, appel-lee, Visually Impaired Persons of Southwest Florida, Inc. (VIP), filed a timely motion for new trial arguing, inter alia, that Tedder had failed to produce evidence of damages. On June 21, 2001, the trial court entered an order granting VIP’s motion, but failed to specify in its order grounds for granting the request for new trial. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(f) (“All orders granting new trial shall specify the specific grounds therefor.”). Perceiving this deficiency, on June 26, 2001, Tedder filed a motion to amend requesting that the court specify reasons for granting VIP relief. Tedder’s motion was granted, and on July 10, 2001, the trial court entered an amended order for new trial. Tedder sought review of the amended order by notice of appeal filed on July 27, 2001.
Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h) enumerates “authorized” motions which toll the rendition of final orders. Because an order granting new trial is not a final order, Tedder’s motion to amend was “unauthorized” and did not toll the rendition of the original order for new trial. See Frazier v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 508 So. 2d 345 (Fla.1987). In Frazier the supreme court considered whether “an order granting a new trial [should] be treated as a final order to the extent that a timely motion for rehearing or reconsideration will toll rendition of the order for purposes of filing the notice of appeal.” Id. at 345. The court held that absent fraud or clerical error, a new trial order is not subject to a motion for rehearing or reconsideration. Id. at 347; see also Huffman v. Little, 341 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Owens v. Jackson, 476 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). We considered whether the deficiency in the original final order should be treated as a clerical error; however, case law indicates that the omission of specific grounds for granting a new trial is a judicial error, rather than a clerical one. Lehman v. Spencer Ladd’s, Inc., 182 So. 2d 402, 404 (Fla.1966).
For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is dismissed.
PARKER and COVINGTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
de Ardila v. Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. & S. Fla. Prop. Invs. Corp., 826 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…y filing of notice of appeal precludes appellate court from exercising jurisdiction); State ex rel. Cantera v. District Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 555 So. 2d 360 (Fla.1990); see also Tedder v. Visually Impaired Persons of Southwest Florida, Inc., 819 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002)(Appeal from amended order for new trial was untimely, where notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after original deficient order for new trial was granted.) Accordingly the instant appeal is dismissed. . Appellee argues…
Authorities Cited
- Lehman v. Spencer Ladd's, Inc., 182 So. 2d 402 (Fla. 1965)
- Frazier v. Seaboard Sys. R.R., Inc., 508 So. 2d 345 (Fla. 1987)
- Jarrell v. Huffman, 341 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Owens v. Royce V. Jackson, M.D., 476 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)