STEPHANIE S. HICKOX, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL S. TAYLOR AND MICHELLE L. TAYLOR, HUSBAND AND WIFE; MICHAEL DEES, AND GORDON D. DEES AND SHARON W. DEES, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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 the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order granting summary judgment was not final and appealable, and the notice of appeal was untimely.
An order granting a motion for partial summary judgment that does not enter final judgment is not a final appealable order, and an appeal filed more than 30 days after such order is untimely.
[1] An order granting a motion for summary judgment that does not enter final judgment is not a final appealable order under Florida law.
[2] A motion for rehearing of a nonfinal order is unauthorized and does not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 Hickox appealed an Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against defendants Taylor, Dees, and others. Hickox filed …
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 March 30, 2006, as well as the appellees’ reply thereto, the Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction to review the order on appeal.
The appellant has sought review of an Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. However, because the order merely grants a motion for summary judgment and fails to actually enter judgment, it is not a final appealable order. Compare McQuaig v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), with Benton v. Moore, 655 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The appeal is also untimely. Although the appellant’s motion for rehearing of the order on appeal was served within ten days of the filing of the order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b), the motion was unauthorized because it sought rehearing of a nonfinal order. Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Assocs., Inc., 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1972). Thus, the motion for rehearing failed to delay rendition of the underlying order and the appellant’s notice of appeal, which was filed more than 30 days after the order was filed, was consequently untimely. Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
In light of the dismissal, the appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the initial brief, filed on May 17, 2006, is denied as moot.
BENTON, POLSTON, and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Crossland v. Marcobay Constr., Inc., 967 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)…endants Drew Brady and Stephen Cowperthwaite’s Motion for Final Summary Judgment. However, because the order merely grants a motion for summai’y judgment and fails to actually enter judgment, it is not a final appealable order. See Hickox v. Taylor, 933 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
-
Daniela Connelly v. Shang HAI Chinese Rest. & Lounge, Inc., 55 So. 3d 721 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Hickox v. Taylor, 933 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006). The appellant’s Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction to Obtain Final Judgment, filed on January 21, 2011, is denied. LEWIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
-
Wanton v. Fla. A & M Univ. Bd. of Trs., 41 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Hickox v. Taylor, 933 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); see also Augustin v. Blount, Inc., 573 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Zabawa v. Penna, 868 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (holding that substance of an order rather than its label is determinative of the order’s nature). THO…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Benton v. Moore, 655 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1972)
- McQUAIG v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 789 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)