JANICE Y. KING, APPELLANT,
v.
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF FLORIDA, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Janice King appealed a summary judgment order in her insurance dispute with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment because King filed her notice of appeal before the trial court ruled on her motion for rehearing and motion to amend the pleadings, causing those motions to be abandoned under Florida Appellate Rule 9.020(h), leaving no basis for appellate review.
The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment order because King abandoned her motion for rehearing and motion to amend by filing a notice of appeal before the trial court issued a signed, written order disposing of those motions. The appellate court lacked jurisdiction to review post-appeal orders and could not consider King's proposed amended pleading.
[1] A notice of appeal filed before a ruling on a motion for rehearing is deemed to abandon the motion for rehearing.
[2] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review an order rendered after the filing of a notice of 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“Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h), appellant is deemed to have abandoned her motion for rehearing, which included the motion for leave to amend, by filing a notice of appeal before the "filing of a signed, written order disposing of all such motions."”
Establishes the procedural rule that abandonment occurs when notice of appeal is filed before the trial court rules on pending post-judgment motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKing sued Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida and obtained a summary judgment against her. After the summary judgment was entered, King filed a moti…
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 Florida Rule Of Appellate Procedure 9.020(H) cases and more on FLexlaw
Janice Y. King appeals a final order granting summary judgment in favor of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., appellee. On appeal, appellant does not argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Rather, she asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion for leave to amend the pleadings to add a count based on promissory estoppel, which motion was filed as a part of her motion for rehearing. Appellant filed her notice of appeal, however, before the trial court ruled on her motions. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h),1 appellant is deemed to have abandoned her motion for rehearing, which included the motion for leave to amend, by filing a notice of appeal before the “filing of a signed, written order disposing of all such motions.” See also Jonsson v. Dickinson, 46 So.3d 1016, 1016-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding former husband abandoned post-judgment motion for rehearing when he filed notice of appeal before the trial court ruled on the motion). Even though the trial court denied appellant’s motion after the filing of the notice of appeal, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to review an order rendered after *1234the filing of the notice of appeal. See, e.g., Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So.2d 258, 259-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Because Appellant has failed to offer any basis for reversal of the only final order that is presently within this court’s scope of review, the trial court’s summary judgment order must be affirmed. See Moecker v. Antoine, 845 So.2d 904, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“It is the burden of the appealing party to demonstrate a basis in the record for overturning the presumptively correct decision of the trial court.”).
AFFIRMED.
PADOVANO and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Momcilo Velickovich and Zorica Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 102 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 2012)
- Moecker v. Antoine, 845 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Erling Henrick Jonsson v. Dickinson, 46 So. 3d 1016 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)