KRISTOFER LOUIS-GASTON LACARRERE, APPELLANT,
v.
JESSICA B. REILLY, 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 court dismissed the appeal because the appellant filed his notice of appeal more than thirty days after the non-final order was rendered, and a motion for reconsideration of a non-final order does not toll the thirty-day filing deadline.
A motion for reconsideration or rehearing of a non-final order does not toll the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
[1] A motion for reconsideration or rehearing of a non-final order does not toll the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedu…
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 granted immediate payment of temporary child support on March 13, 2008. The appellant filed a motion for rehearing or reconsideration,…
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 Appealability Of Non-Final Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Dismiss
SUAREZ, J.
We grant the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The trial court’s order granting immediate payment of temporary child support is an appealable non-final order. See, e.g., Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (holding that the district court has jurisdiction to review a non-final order granting temporary child support pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)). The notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of rendition of the order. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(b). Unlike authorized and timely motions directed to a final order, however, motions for reconsideration or rehearing of non-final orders are unauthorized and, therefore, do not toll the thirty-day time limit for filing the notice of appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h); Decktight Roofing Sens. Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The non-final order granting immediate payment of temporary child support was rendered on March 13, 2008. The appellant then filed a motion for rehearing or reconsideration, which did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal of the non-final order. Decktight, 841 So. 2d at 668. The trial court denied that motion on May 12, 2008. The appellant then filed his notice of appeal on June 11, 2008, more than thirty days from the March 13, 2008 rendition of the non-final order. The notice was untimely filed and this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miccosukee Tribe OF Indians OF Florida v. Lewis, 122 So. 3d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…0 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). As a result, the motion for reconsideration neither suspended rendition of the July 15th order nor tolled the thirty-day time period for filing the instant petition. Canfield, 837 So. 2d at 376; LaCarrere v. Reilly, 987 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). Petitioner concedes that the motion for reconsideration was not an authorized motion and did not suspend rendition or toll the time for filing the petition, but contends, nevertheless, that the petition was filed in a timely man…
-
Concierge Auctions, LLC v. Coldwell Banker Residential Real Est., LLC, 394 So. 3d 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
-
Almanza v. State, 992 So. 2d 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…hat the deportation proceedings are based on the 1995 guilty plea, the defendant has not demonstrated prejudice by reason of the guilty plea. Therefore we affirm the trial court’s order denying postconviction relief. As was true in Orozco v. State, 987 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), our ruling is without prejudice to the defendant to file a new motion alleging (if true) “that his expired visa does not constitute an independently sufficient basis for his removal under applicable law,” id. at 817, and pleading…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garcia v. Sailly Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Decktight Roofing Servs., Inc. v. Amwest Sur. Ins., 841 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)