ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT INC., ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
SHANDOR KISS, ET AL., APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1987-07-02
No. 87-216
UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.
510 So. 2d 971 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1987) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Topics
Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment Timeliness Of Notice Of Appeal Timeliness Motion For Rehearing

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Alter Or Amend Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
ORFINGER, Judge.

ORFINGER, Judge.

Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal is granted. Appellant’s “motion for clarification” of the final order merely asked the trial court to specify the precise grounds on which the final order of dismissal was based. This motion is not a motion for rehearing nor is it tantamount to a motion to alter or amend the final judgment, as appellant argues. Neither does it qualify as any of the other motions which delay rendition of a final order: Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). Because the “motion for clarification” did not delay rendition, and because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days after the final order of dismissal was rendered, the notice of appeal is untimely and this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

UPCHURCH, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Tyler v. State of Florida-Governor Lawton Chiles & Dep't Of Insurance-Tom Gallagher, 718 So. 2d 811 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
    …e Fla. R.App. P. 9.020(h); see also Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc., 263 So. 2d 1, 3 (Fla.1972) (holding that an unauthorized motion not permitted under the rules has no effect on rendition); Adventist Health System/Sunbelt Inc. v. Kiss, 510 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). While Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h) was amended in 1992 to ensure that motions for clarification were included in those types of motions that delay rendition, the motion for clarification referred to in the…
  • Lovell v. Sec. First Ins. Co. (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)
    …nuary Order. The Lovells are incorrect. A motion for rehearing or clarification does not toll rendition of a nonfinal order. See, e.g., Bodkin v. Sweeney, 805 So. 2d 847, 847 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt Inc. v. Kiss, 510 So. 2d 971, 971 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (stating that a motion for clarification that "merely ask[s] the trial court to specify the precise grounds on which" its earlier order is based does not "delay rendition" of the earlier order). Beyond that, the February Or…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw