BECK ET AL.
v.
LITTLEFIELD ET AL.
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.
Florida Supreme Court held that a petition for rehearing tolls the statutory time period for filing an appeal from a final decree that grants no affirmative relief. The Court rejected arguments that would have dismissed the appeal as untimely.
A petition for rehearing does toll the statutory appeal period when the court's decree grants no affirmative relief. The timely filing and presentation of a petition for rehearing suspends the final decree until the petition is disposed of.
“a petition for rehearing to review a final decree which grants no affirmative relief will operate to toll the running of the statutory time in which to file an appeal from such final decree”
Statement of the legal rule the Court adopts as the answer to the issue presented
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeck and others filed an appeal from a final decree that granted no affirmative relief. Appellees moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing that a petition…
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 Stay Order cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Chief Justice.
On appellees’ motion to dismiss this appeal, the sole question presented is whether a petition for rehearing to review a final decree which grants no affirmative relief will operate to toll the running of the statutory time in which to file an appeal from such final decree. This question must be answered in the affirmative, under the authority of Dade County v. Snyder, 134 Fla. 756, 184 So. 489; O’Steen v. Thomas, 146 Fla. 73, 200 So. 230; and Hollywood, Inc., v. Clark, 153 Fla. 501, 15 So. 2d 175, 183.
The cases of Lauderdale by the Sea Development Co. v. Lauderdale Surf & Yacht Estates, Inc., 160 Fla. 929, 37 So. 2d 364, 10 A.L.R.2d 1072, and Wolf v. Cleveland Electric Co., Inc., Fla., 58 So. 2d 153, relied upon by appellees’ in support of their motion to dismiss, are not authoritative here. In the Lauderdale by the Sea case, affirmative relief was granted by the decree appealed from, so that, in the absence of a stay order, the statutory appeal period began to run from the date of its entry. In the Wolf case, a petition for rehearing was filed in a common-law action; and, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Hobson in Kent v. Marvin, Fla., 59 So. 2d 791, 792, “since there is no provision for the filing of a petition for rehearing, in a common-law action, and in view of the fact that said ill-begotten petition cannot be treated as a motion for a new trial, there was actually nothing before, the lower court and nothing to be brought before this Court except the final judgment entered November 24, 1950.”
The correct rule is, then, as stated in Hollywood, Inc., v. Clark, supra [153 Fla. 501, 15 So. 2d 183], that “where the court’s decree grants no affirmative relief and is self-executing and theré are no proceedings for a stay order to operate upon, there is manifestly nothing to stay, and the timely filing and presentation of a petition for rehearing under section 70 of the same act, § 63.70, Fla.Statutes, F.S.A. [now superseded by Florida Equity Rule 70, 31 F.S.A., which is identical thereto]' suspends the final decree until thé petition is disposed of.”
For the reasons stated, the motion to dismiss the appeal should be and it is hereby
Denied.
THOMAS, HOBSON, and DREW, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ganzer v. Ganzer, 84 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 1956)…We now consider a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground the same was not timely filed. Appellant asserts that the pendency of her petition for rehearing tolled the time within which an appeal could be taken. In Beck v. Littlefield, Fla. 1953, 65 So. 2d 722, we stated that where an equity decree grants no affirmative relief so that there are no proceedings for a stay order to operate upon, there is nothing to stay and the timely filing of a petition for rehearing tolls the time within which appeal may…
-
Beck v. Littlefield, 68 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1953)
Authorities Cited
- Tomazin v. Gessner, 153 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1943)
- O'Steen v. Thomas, 146 Fla. 73 (Fla. 1941)
- Wolf v. Cleveland Elec. Co., 58 So. 2d 153 (Fla. 1952)
- Kent v. Marvin, 59 So.2d 791 (Fla. 1952)
- Dade Cnty. v. Snyder, 134 Fla. 756 (Fla. 1938)
- Lauderdale BY THE SEA Dev. Co. v. Lauderdale Surf & Yacht Ests., Inc., 160 Fla. 929 (Fla. 1948)
- Lydon v. Felice Lydon, 160 Fla. 912 (Fla. 1948)