ANDRE L. GRANT, APPELLANT,
v.
CHERYL JONES, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant filed his notice of appeal more than 30 days after the final order was rendered, and the motion to strike that purportedly tolled the appeal deadline was itself untimely under the rules of civil procedure.
The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying the motion to strike because orders denying motions for rehearing are not independently reviewable. Additionally, the appeal is untimely as to the underlying order because the motion to strike was itself untimely and therefore failed to delay rendition of the final order, making the notice of appeal filed more than 30 days later untimely.
[1] An order denying a motion for rehearing is not independently reviewable.
[2] A motion to strike, if construed as a motion for rehearing, does not delay rendition of a final order for purposes of appeal.
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“an order denying a motion for rehearing is not independently reviewable”
Establishes that the order denying the motion to strike cannot be independently appealed under Florida appellate rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe lower court entered an Order Vacating Order of July 12, 2004, which reinstated a child support order, an income deduction order, and a driver's li…
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 Rendition Of Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the appellant’s response to the Court’s order of February 28, 2006, the Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction in this appeal.
The notice of appeal identifies the “Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Strike Order Vacating Order of July 12, 2004,” entered by the lower tribunal on November 4, 2005, as the order of which review was sought. In denying the motion to strike, the lower tribunal interpreted the motion as seeking rehearing of its earlier final order vacating a July 12, 2004, order and thereby reinstating a child support order, an income deduction order, and a driver’s license suspension resulting from nonpayment of child support. Although a timely and authorized motion for rehearing will delay rendition of a final order, see Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), an order denying a motion for rehearing is not independently reviewable. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(5).
Thus, to the extent that the appellant seeks review of the order denying his motion for rehearing, the Court lacks jurisdiction to review the order.
Moreover, the appeal is untimely with respect to the underlying “Order Vacating Order of July 14, 2004.” Because the appellant’s motion to strike was served more than ten days after the Order Vacating Order of July 14, 2004, was filed in the lower tribunal, the motion was untimely and failed to delay rendition of the order. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b); Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h).
Thus, the appellant’s notice of appeal, which was filed more than 30 days following rendition of the final order, failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to review the underlying order.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
ALLEN, WOLF, and WEBSTER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mortellaro & Sinadinos, PLLC v. Countrywide Home Loans, 14 So. 3d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…as an “Order Denying Motion for Rehearing, Reconsideration, and/or Clarification or, in the Alternative, Motion for Relief from the November 18, 2008 Order.” An order on a motion for rehearing is not appealable in its own right. See Grant v. Jones, 933 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Cole v. State, 905 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). An authorized and timely motion for rehearing merely suspends the date of rendition of the order to which it was directed; it does not set in motion another controversy that wil…
-
Christ v. Christ, 103 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…ed, see Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), here, the motion was timely, but not authorized. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(5). Moreover, the order denying rehearing is not independently reviewable. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(4); Grant v. Jones, 933 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). For the foregoing reasons, the Court lacks jurisdiction and the appeal is hereby dismissed. THOMAS, CLARK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.…
-
Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 166 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…grant Appellee’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See Christ v. Christ, 103 So. 3d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[T]he order denying rehearing is not independently reviewable.”) (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4), and Grant v. Jones, 933 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)); accord Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (dismissing appeal of order denying re-' hearing because it was “plainly a non-final order which is not appealable under Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a), as author…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence