JUDITH SEIFRIED ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
THE ESTATE OF HERMAN HIRSHBERG, PINELLAS COUNTY TEACHERS CREDIT UNION, LILY ROOKS, AND DARLEEN MEEKS, 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 court dismissed an appeal of a motion to dismiss order as non-appealable, but reversed the denial of a Rule 1.540 motion to vacate a summary judgment because the trial court erroneously believed a prior unsuccessful appeal foreclosed the motion.
A trial court's denial of a Rule 1.540 motion to vacate a summary judgment based on the mistaken belief that a prior unsuccessful appeal foreclosed the motion is reversible error.
[1] An unsuccessful appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction does not foreclose a party's right to file a subsequent Rule 1.540 motion to vacate the underlying judgment.
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 intelligenceAppellant Allen sought to revoke probate and appealed a summary final judgment against her; her earlier appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.…
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 Petition For Revocation Of Probate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges two probate orders. We dismiss the appeal as to the first order, which granted a motion to dismiss the appellant’s petition to revoke probate, because the order is not appealable. We reverse the second order, which denied the appellant’s Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 motion to vacate a summary final judgment, because the order was entered upon the trial court’s mistaken belief that the appellant’s unsuccessful earlier effort to appeal the summary final judgment foreclosed the appellant’s right to present the rule 1.540 motion.
The mere granting of a motion to dismiss does not result in a final order or an appealable non-final order. See Benton v. Moore, 655 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Accordingly, the appeal from the order granting the motion to dismiss the petition to revoke probate is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The unsuccessful earlier appeal of the summary final judgment was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Allen v. Estate of Hirshberg, 882 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).
Contrary to the trial judge’s mis: taken belief, this appellate disposition did not limit the appellant’s right to thereafter present her rule 1.540 motion to vacate the summary final judgment. See Padovano, 2 Florida Practice:. Florida Appellate Practice § 15.4 (2005 ed.).
Because the trial court’s denial of the rule 1.540 motion was based upon this mistaken belief, the order by which this motion was denied is reversed and this case is remanded to the trial court for further consideration of this motion.
ERVIN, ALLEN and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allen v. The Est. OF Herman Hirshberg, 913 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
-
Nava Jacobs v. Jacob (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…sdiction and therefore dismiss the appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.170(b) (identifying appealable probate and guardianship orders “that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person”) (emphasis added); Allen v. Est. of Hirshberg, 913 So. 2d 1249, 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (“The mere granting of a motion to dismiss does not result in a final order or an appealable non-final order. Accordingly, the appeal from the order granting the motion to dismiss the petition to revoke probate is dismi…
Authorities Cited
- Benton v. Moore, 655 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Allen v. The Est. OF Herman Hirshberg, 913 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)