MALEANA GAY, F/K/A/ MALEANA MANN
v.
TIMOTHY MANN
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.
A motion for rehearing on an order denying a motion for relief from judgment is not authorized under Florida law and does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.
[1] A motion for rehearing on an order denying a motion for relief from judgment is not an authorized motion under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5) and therefo…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Only authorized and timely motions for rehearing toll rendition of an order.”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding tolling of appeal deadlines.
Appellant sought review of an order denying her amended motion to set aside a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. She filed a motion for rehear…
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of an order denying her amended motion to set aside a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Appellant timely filed a motion for rehearing on the order, which was denied. More than five months after the order on appeal was rendered, Appellant filed her notice of appeal. However, because the motion for rehearing was unauthorized and did not toll the time for the filing of a notice of appeal, the notice of appeal was untimely. Only authorized and timely motions for rehearing toll rendition of an order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(1). Motions for rehearing on orders denying a motion for relief from judgment are not authorized and do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5); see also Frantz v. Moore, 772 So. 2d 581, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction “[b]ecause a motion for rehearing of an order denying a motion for relief from judgment is not authorized, the motion for rehearing did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.”); see also Catalano v. Catalano, 516 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Talley v. Canal Indemnity Co., 558 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (Anstead, J., concurring). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED.
B.L. THOMAS, ROBERTS, and LONG, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Catalano v. Catalano, 516 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Talley v. Canal Indem. Co. & Anderson Assurance, Inc., 558 So. 2d 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)