MILDRED S. SNYDER, APPELLANT,
v.
GULF AMERICAN CORPORATION, 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.
The court held that a motion for rehearing of an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice is proper under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal. This case clarifies the appellate procedure when a trial court dismisses a complaint with prejudice.
The court held that a motion to rehear an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice is proper under F.R.C.P. 1.530 and tolls the time for appeal. A motion for rehearing filed within ten days of entry of the dismissal order is a proper and timely motion that suspends the finality of the judgment and prevents the appeal from being untimely.
“Appeal from a judgment is proper only when it is final and the trial court's judicial labors are at an end. Therefore, when the trial court has pending a timely and proper motion for rehearing it has the power to alter said judgment and appeal is not authorized during this period.”
Establishes the legal principle that a pending motion for rehearing keeps a judgment from becoming final and tolls the appellate period.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant (plaintiff in trial court) filed a complaint against appellee (defendant in trial court) seeking an injunction and damages. The trial judge …
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 Merger Of Law And Equity cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, filed a complaint against appellee, defendant in the trial court, seeking an injunction and damages. The trial judge, on motion to dismiss, granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice. Appellant then filed a motion for rehearing within ten days of this order. The order denying the motion for rehearing was entered several months later. Within thirty days from date the motion for rehearing was denied this notice of appeal was filed by appellant and a motion to dismiss the appeal was filed by appellee.
*406Appellee maintains that a motion for rehearing is not proper when directed to a dismissal with prejudice; that the motion to dismiss was a nullity; that as such could not toll the time for filing notice of appeal; and that the appeal is therefore untimely.
The motion for rehearing was filed under F.R.C.P. 1.530, 31 F.S.A. entitled “Motions for New Trials and Rehearing; Amendments to Judgments” which provides in part:
“(a) Jury and Non-Jury Actions * * On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony and enter a new judgment.
(b) Time for Motion. A motion for a new trial or for rehearing shall be served not later than ten days after the rendition of verdict in a jury action or' the entry of judgment in a non-jury action * *
We are called upon to decide whether a motion for rehearing of an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal.
Appeal from a judgment is proper only when it is final and the trial court’s judicial labors are at an end. Therefore, when the trial court has pending a timely and proper motion for rehearing it has the power to alter said judgment and appeal is not authorized during this period. See F. A.R. 1.3 and F.A.R. 3.2, subd. b, 32 F.S.A.
We hold that a motion to rehear an order dismissing a complaint with prejudice is proper under F.R.C.P. 1.530 because it is directed to an otherwise appealable final judgment heard without a jury within the terms of the rule. This being a judgment, a motion filed within ten (10) days of its entry is proper and tolls the time for appeal. This was the procedure under the former equity rules, O’Steen v. Thomas, 1941, 146 Fla. 73, 200 So. 230, and is therefore encompassed by Rule 1.530 of our modern rules of procedure in which law and equity have been merged.
The motion to dismiss is denied.
MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Derma Lift Salon, Inc. v. Honorable Edward Swanko, 419 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ompany v. Chelton, 388 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980), subject to the [*1181] further jurisdiction of the trial court only upon a timely filed motion for rehearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, see Snyder v. Gulf American Corporation, 224 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969), or on its own initiative within the time allowed for a rehearing motion. When the plaintiff’s motion for rehearing was denied by the trial court on July 19, 1982, the trial court’s jurisdiction over the cause terminated.1 City o…
-
Ellen Heather (Lewis) Laytner v. Humble OIL & Ref. Co., 262 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 1972)…ning Co., 251 So. 2d 156, which is in direct conflict with two decisions of the District Court of Appeal, Second District (Elmore v. Palmer First Nat. B. & T. Co. of Sarasota, 221 So. 2d 164 (Fla.App.2d 1969) and Snyder v. Gulf American Corporation, 224 So. 2d 405 (Fla.App.2d, 1969)) on the same point of law. Fla. Const., art. V, § 4, F.S.A. The facts of this case can be briefly stated. On February 17, 1971, petitioner, Mrs. Laytner, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, al…
-
Inv. Corp. OF S. Fla. v. Fla. Thoroughbred Breeders Ass'n, Inc., 256 So. 2d 227 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…ntiff was authorized to file a petition for rehearing to an order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. See R.C.P. 1.530, 31 F.S.A.; Laytner v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., Fla. App.1971, 251 So. 2d 156; Snyder v. Gulf American Corp., Fla.App.1969, 224 So. 2d 405; and Elmore v. Palmer First National Bank & Trust Co. of Sarasota, Fla.App. 1969, 221 So. 2d 164. Having made this assumption we note that 1.530(b), R.C.P. provides: “A motion for a new trial or for a rehearing shall be served not later than 10 da…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- O'Steen v. Thomas, 146 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1941)