RAYMOND A. MCMAHON, APPELLANT,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 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.
McMahon sought mandamus relief against the Florida Department of Corrections. The trial court initially granted his petition but then vacated that order after the defendant filed a late motion for rehearing. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to act on a motion for rehearing filed outside the 10-day statutory deadline.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify, amend, or vacate an order after rendition except within the time and manner provided by rule or statute. Because the Department of Corrections' motion for rehearing was served after expiration of the 10-day period, the trial court was without jurisdiction to stay proceedings or withdraw the order granting mandamus relief.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to modify, amend, or vacate an order after rendition, except as provided by rule or statute.
[2] A motion for rehearing must be served within 10 days after entry of the judgment for which rehearing is sought; otherwise, the trial court loses jurisdiction to grant the…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court's authority to modify, amend, or vacate an order or final judgment after rendition is limited to the time and manner provided by rule or statute.”
Establishes the fundamental principle governing a trial court's jurisdiction to alter 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 trial court granted McMahon's petition for writ of mandamus on August 27, 1992. The Department of Corrections filed a motion for rehearing after t…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
McMahon seeks review of an order dismissing his petition for writ of mandamus. By order of August 27, 1992, the trial court initially granted the petition, but pursuant to appellee’s untimely motion for rehearing, stayed enforcement of the order granting relief pending the disposition of appeals, then before this court, involving issues similar to those raised by McMahon. Thereafter, the trial court entered an order lifting the stay, withdrawing the previous order granting relief, and dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim for which relief should be granted.
A trial court’s authority to modify, amend, or vacate an order or final judgment after rendition is limited to the time and manner provided by rule or statute. Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So. 2d 1153 (Fla.1986). A motion for rehearing under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530 must be served within 10 days after entry of the judgment for which rehearing is sought, failing which the trial court loses jurisdiction except to enforce the judgment or grant relief as provided by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540. Id. at 1389; Clearwater Oaks Bank v. Plumtree, 477 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Because appellee’s motion for rehearing was served after expiration of the 10-day period prescribed by rule, the trial court was without jurisdiction to stay proceedings pursuant to that motion, and to thereafter withdraw the order granting the petition for writ of mandamus.
Accordingly, this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED with directions to vacate the order dismissing the petition, and to reinstate the order of August 27, 1992, granting mandamus relief.
MINER, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Clearwater Oaks Bank v. Plumtree, 477 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)