GEORGE ANDRES AND ANN ANDRES, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
INDIAN CREEK PHASE III-B HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., A FLORIDA NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION, 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 appellate court affirmed the final judgment of garnishment because the appeal from the June 14, 2002 order denying the motion to dissolve the injunction was untimely filed, depriving the court of jurisdiction to review the merits.
An appeal from a post-judgment motion to dissolve a permanent injunction must be filed within thirty days of the order's rendition, and failure to do so constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.
[1] A post-judgment motion to dissolve a permanent injunction and award of attorney's fees must be appealed within thirty days of the order's rendition, and failure to timely…
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 intelligenceThe trial court entered a final judgment of garnishment on October 17, 2002, and on June 14, 2002, entered an order denying an amended emergency motio…
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 Post-Judgment Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant filed his notice of appeal within thirty days from a final judgment of garnishment entered on October 17, 2002. The notice of appeal states that appellant is also appealing an order denying an amended emergency motion to dissolve the original permanent injunction granted in this case, which also awarded attorney’s fees. That order was entered on June 14, 2002. No appeal was filed within thirty days of that order. We conclude that an appeal from the June 14th order is untimely, because the order was not an interlocutory order in the garnishment proceeding but was a post-judgment motion directed to the original final judgment in this action. Whether we treat it as a post-judgment motion appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5) or a final order pursuant to Rule 9.110(a), an appeal from the order must be filed within thirty days of rendition for this court to have jurisdiction to review. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b); 9.130(b); Franchi v. Fla. Dep’t of Commerce, Div. of Employment Sec., 375 So. 2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (noting failure to file within thirty-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect).
As all of the issues raised on appeal deal with the order denying the motion to dissolve the permanent injunction and an attack on the original final judgment, we have no jurisdiction to consider them. Appellant having raised no issue regarding the validity of the garnishment itself, the final judgment is affirmed.
GUNTHER, WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 876 So. 2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…1052 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). See also Braggs v. State, 642 So. 2d 129 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Fowler v. State, 641 So. 2d 941 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994).2 Appellant has the right to be present at re-sentencing and to be represented by counsel. See Duhart v. State, 858 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). We find no merit in Appellant’s other claims and find that he was correctly sentenced to non-guideline sentences on the kidnapping convictions, which we affirm. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded for re-sentencing. .…
-
Duhart v. State, 930 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…tence. This “corrected order” was entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the appellant’s original sentence. This sentence was later reversed and remanded because neither the appellant nor his counsel were present for the resentencing. Duhart v. State, 858 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Thereafter, on April 1, 2004, the trial court held a resentencing hearing. The court sentenced the appellant, pursuant to the 1995 sentencing guidelines, to concurrent sentences of twenty-years on each of the four counts followe…
Authorities Cited
- Franchi v. Fla. Dep't of Commerce, 375 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)