JACK PERRY LOVELACE, APPELLANT,
v.
BRANDI LOVELACE, 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.
Appeal dismissed as untimely because notice of appeal was filed thirty-four days after the trial court's relocation order, exceeding the thirty-day deadline, and a motion for reconsideration does not toll the appeal period.
A motion for reconsideration of a non-final order does not toll the thirty-day time limit for filing an appeal.
[1] A motion for reconsideration of a non-final order does not toll the thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(b).
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 intelligence“a motion for reconsideration of a nonfinal order does not toll the 30-day time limit for appeal”
Court citing Panama City Gen. P'ship v. Godfrey Panama City Inv., LLC to establish the controlling rule
The trial court granted appellee's motion to relocate with the parties' minor children. Appellant filed a notice of appeal thirty-four days after the …
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 Appeal Time cases and more on FLexlaw
The Notice of Appeal having been filed thirty-four days after rendition of the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion to relocate with the parties’ minor children, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal as untimely. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(i) & 9.110(b). The law in Florida is well settled that a motion for rehearing or reconsideration does not toll the time for filing an appeal from a non-final order reviewable pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. See Panama City Gen. P’ship v. Godfrey Panama City Inv., LLC, 109 So.3d 291, 292 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (recognizing “a motion for reconsideration of a nonfinal order does not toll the 30-day time limit for appeal”); SC. Read, Inc. v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 932 So.2d 1255, 1256-57 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding a motion for rehearing from an appealable, non-final order “is not authorized” and “thus does not toll the time for filing an appeal”); Deal v. Deal, 783 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (concluding that a motion for rehearing directed to a non-final order determining child custody in a domestic relations matter and appeal-able pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii), “is not authorized under the rules and does not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal”).
DISMISSED.
CLARK, ROWE, and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
THE Avael LAW Firm, PLLC v. Sarina Sechrist (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…tations omitted)). Importantly, “a motion for . . . reconsideration does not 6 toll the time for filing an appeal from a non-final order reviewable pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130.” Lovelace v. Lovelace, 124 So. 3d 447, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).4 Moreover, “an order that simply denies a motion for reconsideration . . . of an underlying non-final order . . . is not in itself an appealable order.” See Samara v. Tenet Fla. Physician Servs., LLC, 317 So. 3d 187, 189…
-
Lopez v. Remonde Lopez, 190 So. 3d 117 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…110 So. 3d 523, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (citing Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h)). However, “a motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of a non-final order because rehearing is not authorized for non-final orders.” Id.; see also Lovelace v. Lovelace, 124 So. 3d 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); El Gohary v. El Gohary, 76 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So. 2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The order at bar, setting forth custody and visita…
-
Doukas v. Doukas (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…rendition of this order as required by Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(b), the mother moved for rehearing. A motion for rehearing is not authorized as to a non-final order, so it does not toll the time for appeal. See Lovelace v. Lovelace, 124 So. 3d 447, 447 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“The law in Florida is well settled that a motion for rehearing or reconsideration does not toll the time for filing an appeal from a non-final order reviewable pursuant to the provisions of Florida Rule of Appellate Proced…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Deal v. Deal, 783 So. 2d 319 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- The Panama City Gen. P'ship v. Godfrey Panama City Inv., 109 So. 3d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- SC. Read, Inc. v. Seminole Cnty. Sch. Bd., 932 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)