PATRICIA ANN GILMER ALLEN, APPELLANT,
v.
W. FRANK ALLEN, JR., 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.
This case involves an interlocutory appeal concerning a trial court's attempt to amend a dismissal order after its jurisdiction had expired. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, finding it was issued without jurisdiction.
No, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to amend its order of dismissal after the ten-day period had expired.
“Under the provisions of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530, 31 Florida Statutes Annotated, the lower court had jurisdiction to amend or modify the order of dismissal only for ten days after rendition which in this case would have been until January 27, 1969, since the terminal days of that ten-day period were a Saturday and Sunday.”
This quote explains the rule that limits the trial court's power to amend its orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of her separate maintenance suit. The trial court initially entered an order of dismissal without prejudice.…
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 Civil Procedure 1.530 cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal by the plaintiff in a suit for separate maintenance.
The order sought to he reversed was rendered March 5, 1969, and by its tenor purported to amend and modify an earlier order of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal. Said earlier order was rendered on January 15, 1969. Under the provisions of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.530, 31 Florida Statutes Annotated, the lower court had jurisdiction to amend or modify the order of dismissal only for ten days after rendition which in this case would have been until January 27, 1969, since the terminal days of that ten-day period were a Saturday and Sunday. Appellee’s motion resulting in the order now under review was filed on January 29, 1969, after the court below lost jurisdiction to amend or modify the order of dismissal.
Since the order herein appealed was rendered after the trial court lost jurisdiction, it must be reversed on authority of Kippy Corporation v. Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1965).
Reversed.
CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of George E. Beeman, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…as provided by Rules 1.530 and 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial court has no authority to alter, modify or vacate an order or judgment. 236 So. 2d at 3. See also Denny v. Denny, 334 So. 2d 300 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Allen v. Allen, 230 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). Since the Florida Rules of Probate and Guardianship Procedure do not presently provide for motions for rehearing and inasmuch as the proceeding to determine attorneys’ fees was not determined to be an adversary proceeding and t…
-
Kitchens v. State, 240 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)…, hears the testimony concerning the voluntariness of a confession and makes a determination thereof. In two decisions, Brown v. State, 181 So. 2d 578 (Fla.App.1966), cert. den. in Brown v. Wainwright, 188 So. 2d 814 (Fla.1966), and Allen v. State, 230 So. 2d 29 (Fla.App.1970), this court held that this long-time practice had been thoroughly established in Florida and that this prac [*323] tice was valid under the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct.…
-
Kitzmiller v. Se. Servs., Inc., 358 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…intiff is entitled.” On August 18, 1977, the trial judge entered an amended final judgment and included $350.00 as attorney’s fees for the plaintiff. The motion to amend final judgment was not timely under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(g). See Allen v. Allen, 230 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969). The motion was not a proper motion under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. Cf. Kuykendall v. Kuykendall, 301 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). The inclusion of attorney’s fees contravenes the stipulation of the parties. The final judgment, dat…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Kippy Corp. v. Sherwood Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1965)