ARACELY P. CRISTOBAL AND WILLIAM ADAY
v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal challenging an order denying a motion to vacate a dismissal order where the homeowners failed to timely appeal the underlying order denying relief. The court held that a motion for rehearing does not toll the time to appeal and is not independently reviewable.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review the order denying rehearing because motions for rehearing do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal, and orders denying such motions are not independently reviewable separate from the underlying order they concern.
[1] A motion for rehearing directed to an order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
[2] An order denying a motion for rehearing of an order that dismissed a prior motion to vacate is not independently reviewable from the order denying the motion to vacate.
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“Orders disposing of motions for rehearing or motions that suspend rendition are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order . . . .”
Establishes that orders denying rehearing motions cannot be reviewed independently
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAracely P. Cristobal and William Aday sought to challenge an order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal. They subsequently filed a motion …
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
Opinion filed November 6, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0149 Lower Tribunal No. 22-2698-CA-01
________________
Aracely P. Cristobal and William Aday,
Appellants,
vs.
Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Gold Litigation, P.A., and Zalman Cole (Dania Beach), for appellants. Russo Appellate Firm, P.A. and Elizabeth K. Russo, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER and GORDO, JJ. GORDO, J.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Aracely P. Cristobal and William Aday (collectively, the “Homeowners”) challenge an order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and the denial of rehearing on the same. Because the Homeowners 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 dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.”); Wood v. Wood, 357 So. 3d 736, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA
2023) (“Appellant . . . 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.”); Perez v. Saima Grp. 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. Accordingly, we lack appellate jurisdiction to review the challenged order and grant
[appellee’s] motion to dismiss the appeal.”).
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aracely P. Cristobal and William Aday v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 357 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…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.”); Wood v. Wood, 357 So. 3d 736, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Appellant . . . 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 motio…1 / 2
-
Cupid v. Lyons-White (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)…rders 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.” (quoting Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5))); Perez v. Saima Grp. 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) motio…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Perez v. Saima Grp. Corp., 47 Fla. L. Weekly D912 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
- Aracely P. Cristobal and William Aday v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 357 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)