PANZEGNA WOOD
v.
ALEXANDER WOOD
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.
A motion for rehearing directed to an order denying a Rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and an order denying such a rehearing motion is not separately reviewable.
[1] A motion for rehearing directed to an order denying a Rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment is not an authorized motion and does not toll the time period within w…
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“Motions for rehearing directed to [orders entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment] are not authorized under these rules and therefore will not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.”
Rule of procedure establishing that motions for rehearing do not toll the appeal deadline in the context of Rule 1.540(b) motions.
Panzegna Wood appealed a nonfinal order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and the denial of rehearing on that motion. The appellant fai…
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 Deadlines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
Appellant, Panzegna Wood, challenges a nonfinal order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and the denial of rehearing on the same. Because appellant failed to timely appeal the underlying order denying relief, the motion for rehearing did not toll rendition, and the order denying rehearing is not independently reviewable, we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) (“Orders disposing of motions for rehearing or motions that suspend rendition are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order . . . .”); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) (“Motions for rehearing directed to [orders entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment] are not authorized under these rules and therefore will not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.”); New Day
Miami, LLC v. Beach Devs., LLC, 225 So. 3d 372, 375–77 (Fla. 3d DCA
2017) (holding no jurisdiction to review trial court’s order denying relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b) because appellant’s successive motion seeking rehearing did not toll time for filing notice of appeal); Lawrence v. Marina
Tower of Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 323 So. 3d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2021) (finding lack of jurisdiction where appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the rendition of order discharging lis pendens and appellant’s motion to vacate order did not toll rendition of same);
Suntrust Bank v. Hodges, 12 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
Corp., 347 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Because motions for rehearing directed toward orders denying rule 1.540(b) motions are generally not authorized, such a motion does not toll the time period to appeal the underlying order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion, and an order denying such a rehearing motion is not separately reviewable from the order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion.”); Frantz v. Moore, 772 So. 2d 581, 581 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2000) (same).
Appeal dismissed.
3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Panzegna Wood v. Wood (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
-
THE Avael LAW Firm, PLLC v. Sarina Sechrist (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…ld be directed toward ‘orders,’ as well as toward ‘judgments’ and ‘decrees,’ our Supreme Court plainly indicated that the rule is applicable to seek vacatur of orders that are final.” Lawrence v. Marina Tower of Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 323 So. 3d 271, 272-73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (citation omitted). Here, the law firm’s vacatur motion was directed at the trial court’s impleader order that was plainly a non-final order. See Fundamental Long Term Care Holdings, LLC, 110 So. 3d at 7. Therefore, no…
-
Panzegna Wood v. Wood (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…urisdiction to review trial court’s order denying relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b) because appellant’s successive motion seeking rehearing did not toll time for filing notice of appeal); Lawrence v. Marina Tower of Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 323 So. 3d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (finding lack of jurisdiction where appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the rendition of order discharging lis pendens and appellant’s motion to vacate order did not toll rendition of same); Suntr…
Authorities Cited
- Frantz v. Moore, 772 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)
- Perez v. Saima Grp. Corp., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D912 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- NEW DAY Miami, LLC v. Beach Developers, LLC, 225 So. 3d 372 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Suntrust Bank v. Hodges, 12 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Panzegna Wood v. Wood (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)