JOSE DE JESUS AND ZELENE DE JESUS, APPELLANTS,
v.
HSBC BANK USA, N.A, ETC., 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.
Appellants appealed from an order denying their motion for rehearing in a foreclosure case, but their untimely filing of the rehearing motion did not toll the deadline to appeal the underlying judgment and the order denying their motion to vacate. The appellate court affirmed the denial of rehearing and dismissed the appeal as to the underlying orders for lack of jurisdiction.
The court lacked jurisdiction to review the final judgment and the order denying the motion to vacate because Appellants failed to timely appeal those orders. An untimely motion for rehearing does not toll rendition of the original order, and by the time Appellants filed their rehearing motion, the 30-day deadline to appeal the order denying the motion to vacate had already expired.
[1] An untimely motion for rehearing does not toll the rendition of the original order, and therefore does not extend the time for filing an appeal.
[2] A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the rendition of the order to be reviewed to invoke appellate jurisdiction.
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“Therefore, that motion did not stay rendition of the order denying the motion to vacate. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i) (providing that rendition is tolled by the filing of an authorized and timely motion for rehearing).”
Establishes that only timely motions for rehearing toll rendition and the appeal deadline.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a non-jury trial, the trial court entered final judgment in favor of HSBC Bank USA on April 4, 2014. Appellants did not immediately appeal. …
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
Appellants Jose and Zelene de Jesus appeal from the trial court’s order denying rehearing and seek review of that order as well as the original order denying Appellants’ motion to vacate final judgment.
Following a non-jury trial, a final judgment was entered in favor of HSBC Bank USA on April 4, 2014. Appellants did not appeal'that final judgment/-Instead, 59 days later, Appellants filed a motion to vacate the final judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court, on June 26, 2014, denied the motion -to vacate the final judgment. Appellants did not immediately appeal that order. Instead, on August 26, 2014, more than 60 day? after rendition of the order denying the motion to vacate, Appellants filed a motion for rehearing. This motion for rehearing was. untimely. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b) (providing that a motion for rehearing must be served not later than 15 days after the date of the filing of the judgment in a non-jury action). Therefore, that motion., did not stay rendition of the order denying the motion to vacate. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(i) (providing that rendition is tolled by the filing of an authorized and timely motion for rehearing). See also Reid v. Cooper, 955 So.2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (the filing of an untimely motion for rehearing does not toll rendition of the original order); Dominguez v. Barakat, 609, So.2d 664 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (same). In point of fact, by the time Appellants filed their motion for rehearing, the time had already expired for filing a notice of appeal of the order denying the motion to vacate. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b) (providing that the jurisdiction of this court to review a. final order of a lower tribunal shall be invoked by filing a notice of appeal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed).
The trial court denied the motion for rehearing on November 20, 2014, and Appellants have appealed the order denying rehearing. ’ However, Appellants’ brief focuses its arguments almost entirely on attacking the underlying final judgment and the subsequent order denying the motion to vacate that final judgment. We have no jurisdiction tq review-those orders" because, .as described earlier, Appellants *970failed- to appeal the final judgment and failed to timely appeal the order denying the motion to vacate.
We find no merit in Appellants’ contentions that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction or that the trial court erred in denying their motion for rehearing. We affirm the order denying rehearing, and dismiss the remaining portion of the appeal that seeks review of the final judgment and the order denying the motion to vacate, as this court is' without jurisdiction to review same.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McGREGOR v. Ocean Harbour OF Islamorado Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 955 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)