RAMONA HUNT, APPELLANT,
v.
ALPHEUS FORBES, 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.
Appellant Hunt challenged a trial court order requiring her to pay fees of examining committee members in a petition for her grandfather's incapacity determination. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed within thirty days of the final fee order.
The court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The fee order was a final, appealable order, and Hunt's failure to file a timely notice of appeal within thirty days constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect. An untimely motion for rehearing cannot serve to toll the rendition of the final order and extend the appeal deadline.
[1] An order requiring a party to pay fees for an examining committee is a final, appealable order.
[2] A motion for rehearing must be timely served to toll the rendition of a final order and extend the time for 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“Generally, the test employed by the appellate court to determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether an order is final and appealable.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 4, 2010, the trial court dismissed Hunt's petition to determine her grandfather's incapacity and issued an "Order for Payment of Fees" req…
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 Tolling Of Rendition cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant filed a petition to determine the incapacity of her grandfather and challenges an order of the trial court requiring her to pay the fees of the examining committee. Because we find that the instant appeal was not timely brought, we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
On February 4,2010, the trial court rendered its order dismissing the appellant’s petition for incapacity and an “Order for Payment of Fees.” The fee order required appellant to pay $300 and $250, *134respectively, to the named physicians and to provide the court with proof of payment within thirty days. This February 4, 2010 fee order was a final, appealable order. Cf. S.L.T. Warehouse Co. v. Webb, 304 So.2d 97, 99 (Fla.1974) (“Generally, the test employed by the appellate court to determine finality of an order, judgment or decree is whether the order in question constitutes an end to the judicial labor in the cause, and nothing further remains to be done by the court to effectuate a termination of the cause as between the parties directly affected.”); Baron v. Provencial, 908 So.2d 526, 527-28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (recognizing that finality of order is not affected by trial court’s retention of jurisdiction to enforce the order). As such, appellant had ten days to serve her motion for rehearing. See Fla. Prob. R. 5.020(d). Appellant did not serve her “Notice of Letter to Judge Conner,” attacking the order requiring her to pay the examining committee members’ fees, and her “Objection to Payment of Fees of Examining Committee Members” until March 26, 2010. The motion for rehearing was thus untimely and could not have served to toll rendition of the fee order and extend the time for the taking of an appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h) (recognizing that an authorized and timely motion for rehearing serves to toll rendition of final order).
Further, once the ten days for rehearing expired, the trial court lost jurisdiction to do anything other than enforce the fee order previously entered. See Epi-cor Software Corp. v. Coopers & Clarke, Inc., 928 So.2d 1249, 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Thus, the trial court’s subsequent entry of an “Amended Final Judgment” could not serve to revive the appellant’s right to appeal the propriety of the trial court’s ruling requiring her to pay the fees.
Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) (requiring notice of appeal to be filed within thirty days of rendition of order appealed); Miami-Dade County v. Peart, 843 So.2d 363, 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (recognizing that failure to file notice of appeal within thirty days “ ‘constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect’ ”) (quoting First Nat’l Bank in Fort Myers v. Fla. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 461 So.2d 208, 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)).
GROSS and GERBER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Itzhak BAK v. BAK, 110 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…future contact between Itzhak and the children upon the agreement of the therapists working with the children and Itzhak. Failing to file a notice of appeal within the time limits “constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.” Hunt v. Forbes, 65 So. 3d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because Itzhak failed to file the notice of appeal within thirty days of the rendition of the status report, we are required to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Dismissed. MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., co…
-
Adelman v. Hillary Elfenbein, 174 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…arties had ten days to file a motion for rehearing from these orders. Fla. Prob. R. 5.020(d). Once the ten days for rehearing expired, the trial court lost jurisdiction to do anything other than enforce the orders previously entered. Hunt v. Forbes, 65 So. 3d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The parties had thirty days to file an appeal from the orders. Fla. Prob. R. 5.100; Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b). Because no appeal was taken, the orders became final and absolute, and “thereafter the court was without jurisdi…
-
Tedder v. Est. OF Mack Reed Tedder, Sr., 200 So. 3d 123 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…thirteen days after the order denying subsequent administration was filed. The effect of this untimely [*124] motion for rehearing was that it -did not toll the rendition of the order or extend Tedder’s time for taking an appeal. See Hunt v. Forbes, 65 So. 3d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h) (recognizing that an authorized and timely motion for rehearing serves to toll rendition of a final order)). Moreover, once the ten days for rehearing expired, the circuit court lost jurisdic…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- S. L. T. Warehouse Co. v. Wilmott Webb, 304 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1974)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Peart, 843 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Universal Dev. Corp. & USF & G v. Lavine, 461 So. 2d 208 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Epicor Software Corp. v. Coopers & Clarke, Inc., 928 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
- Baron v. Provencial, 908 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)