MATTHEW D. CHRIST, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHRYN K. CHRIST, FORMER WIFE, 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.
Matthew Christ appealed three orders from a post-dissolution child support modification proceeding, but the Florida District Court of Appeal, First District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the appellant failed to timely invoke appellate review of the orders.
The court lacked jurisdiction to review any of the three orders. The notice of appeal failed to timely invoke jurisdiction over the July 6, 2012 final judgment because the motion to vacate was untimely. Appellate review was unavailable for the August 9, 2012 order denying the motion to vacate because the underlying motion was untimely. The August 24, 2012 order denying rehearing was not independently reviewable and the motion for rehearing was not authorized.
[1] A motion to vacate an order must be filed within ten days of the order to delay its rendition.
[2] Appellate review of an order on a motion to vacate is unavailable if the underlying motion was not timely filed.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Although the July 6, 2012, Supplemental Final Judgment Adjudicating Child Support Arrearage and Modifying Child Support is a final appealable order, appellant failed to timely invoke the Court's jurisdiction to review the order.”
Establishes that while the order was final and appealable, the appellant's failure to timely file a motion to vacate resulted in loss of jurisdiction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMatthew Christ sought review of three orders: (1) the July 6, 2012 Supplemental Final Judgment Adjudicating Child Support Arrearage and Modifying Chil…
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
DISMISSED. Upon consideration of appellant’s response to the Court’s show cause order of October 3, 2012, the Court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Appellant seeks review of three orders entered in a post-dissolution of marriage modification proceeding. The appeal is either untimely or unauthorized with respect to each of these orders.
Although the July 6, 2012, Supplemental Final Judgment Adjudicating Child Support Arrearage and Modifying Child Support is a final appealable order, appellant failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to review the order. Appellant’s motion to vacate the order failed to delay its rendition because the motion was not filed within ten days of the order as required by Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.491(f). Thus, rendition of the order occurred on July 6, 2012, and appellant’s notice of appeal failed to timely invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to review it.
In addition, to the extent that appellant seeks review of the August 9, 2012, Order Denying Motion to Vacate Supplemental Final Judgment Adjudicating Child Support Arrearage and Modifying Child Support as Untimely, appellate review is unavailable. Although Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5) provides for review of an order on a motion to vacate, the rule requires that the motion precipitating the order be both authorized and timely. Here, as determined by the lower tribunal and conceded by appellant, the motion to vacate was not timely. Thus, the order does not fall within the scope of rule 9.130(a)(5).
Finally, appellant’s attempt to appeal the August 24, 2012, Order Denying Motion for Rehearing fails. Although a motion for rehearing is capable of delaying rendition of the underlying order where the motion is both timely and authorized, 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
NEW DAY Miami, LLC v. Beach Developers, LLC, 225 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…enerally prohibits appellate review of orders on motions for rehearing of final orders separately from appellate review of the underlying final order. Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 166 So. 3d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Christ v. Christ, 103 So. 3d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). But rule 9.130(a)(4)’s “separate review” prohibition is not absolute; a careful reading of the relevant text of rule 9.130(a)(4) reveals that the rule’s app…
-
Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 166 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…oves to dismiss the appeal. Because an order on a motion for rehearing is not independently appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.180(a)(4), we 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 DC…
-
Marlow v. Newrez, LLC, 49 Fla. L. Weekly D362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Grant v. Jones, 933 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)