DONNELL QUARTERMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
WALTER A. MCNEIL, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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 First District Court of Appeal dismissed Donnell Quarterman's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he sought review of an order denying relief from judgment that addressed a nonfinal order on rehearing and disqualification motions, which are not appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.
The order on appeal is neither final nor appealable under Rule 9.130 because orders on motions for relief from nonfinal orders on rehearing or disqualification are not immediately appealable; the trial court's authority does not extend to vacating orders on rehearing, and disqualification motions do not result in final orders.
[1] An order entered on a motion for relief from a nonfinal order is not reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5).
[2] Appellate jurisdiction in civil cases is limited to final orders and nonfinal orders as prescribed by Rule 9.130.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“This Court's appellate jurisdiction in civil cases is limited to final orders and nonfinal orders as prescribed by Rule 9.130.”
Establishes the fundamental jurisdictional limitation governing the court's review authority
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQuarterman filed a motion for relief from judgment that sought to vacate an order denying rehearing and denying motions for disqualification, which ha…
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 Mandamus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Having considered the appellant’s response to this Court’s order of November 3, 2008, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Bennett’s Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortgage Corp., 870 So.2d 93, 98 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (holding order entered on a motion to vacate a nonfinal order is not reviewable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5)).
The appellant brought this appeal seeking review of an “Order Denying Relief from Judgment and Closing File,” entered on March 17, 2008. This order ruled on a motion that addressed and sought relief from an “Order Denying Rehearing and Denying Motions for Disqualification,” which had been entered on January 30, 2007. The order on rehearing and disqualification had been entered following the final judgment denying mandamus relief, entered on November 30, 2006.
This Court’s appellate jurisdiction in civil cases is limited to final orders *393and nonfinal orders as prescribed by Rule 9.130. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b). The order on appeal is neither final nor appeal-able pursuant to Rule 9.130. Orders entered on authorized and timely motions for relief from judgment are immediately ap-pealable pursuant to Rule 9.130(a)(5). However, the appellant’s motion for relief filed below was not such an authorized motion because it was not directed towards a “final judgment, decree, order or proceeding” as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Bennett’s Leasing, 870 So.2d at 98. Although a timely motion for rehearing will delay rendition of a final order until an order on the motion has been entered, see Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h), the order on the motion is not a final judgment. Further, a trial court does not have authority to vacate its order on rehearing. State ex rel. Cantera v. Dist. Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 555 So.2d 360 (Fla.1990). Therefore, an order on a motion for relief from an order on a motion for rehearing is not appealable under the rule. Similarly, a motion to disqualify the trial judge does not result in a final order. See generally Klapper-Barrett v. Nurell, 742 So.2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Cardinal v. Wendy’s of S. Fla., 529 So.2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). Consequently, an order on a motion for relief from an order on a motion to disqualify the trial judge is not appealable under the rule.
The “Appellant [sic] Motion for Extension of time to File Initial Brief,” filed in this Court on November 24, 2008, is hereby denied as moot.
DISMISSED.
BARFIELD, and LEWIS, JJ., concur; ALLEN, J., concurs in judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schinstine v. Schinstine, 9 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. DISMISSED. See Quarterman v. McNeil, 1 So. 3d 392, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (noting that had the order on appeal been a final order the motion for rehearing would have delayed rendition); Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Chambers v. Travis, 971 So. 2d 157, 159 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (noting Florida Rule o…
Authorities Cited
- Bennett's Leasing, Inc. v. First St. Mortg. Corp., 870 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Eduardo Cantera v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 555 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 1990)
- Cardinal v. Wendy's OF S. Fla., Inc., 529 So. 2d 335 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Klapper-Barrett v. Nurell, 742 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)