FELECIA SUELTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2008-03-18
No. 1D07-4929
WEBSTER, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.
977 So. 2d 697 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2008)

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.

Synopsis

Suelter appealed an administrative order dismissing her pension petition, but the appeal was filed more than 30 days after the order was rendered. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Suelter's post-judgment motion for reconsideration did not toll the appeal deadline, as the administrative agency lacked rules authorizing such tolling motions.


Holding

The court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because it was filed outside the 30-day jurisdictional period. The motion for reconsideration did not delay rendition of the order because the administrative agency had not promulgated rules authorizing such motions and had instead prohibited their use. Equitable tolling does not apply to the appeal deadline.


Headnotes

[1] A notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the rendition of a final agency order to timely invoke appellate jurisdiction.

[2] An administrative agency's prohibition of motions that delay rendition of its orders means such motions do not toll the time for filing an appeal.

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

Key Quotes

“This administrative order brought an end to the administrative adjudicative process and is a final agency order.”

Establishes that the agency order was final and appealable.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Suelter filed a petition with the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement. An administrative order dismissing her petition was enter…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed this appeal on September 24, 2007, seeking review of an administrative order dismissing her petition, which had been entered and filed with the agency on August 14, 2007. This administrative order brought an end to the administrative adjudicative process and is a final agency order. Hill v. Div. Of Retirement, 687 So. 2d 1376, 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997). However, because the appeal was not filed within 30 days of the date the order was rendered, the notice of appeal did not timely invoke this Court’s jurisdiction.

The appellant argues that rendition of the order on appeal was delayed by her “Motion for Reconsideration and to Set Aside Order on Respondent’s Motion for Dismissal,” which had been served on August 17, 2007. However, the Agency has not promulgated a rule authorizing motions that delay rendition of its orders and has chosen instead to prohibit the use of such motions. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60R-1.006R3), (4). Cf Fla. Admin. Code R. 25-22.060 (authorizing motions for reconsideration in proceedings before the Public Service Commission). The appellant’s assertion that the Agency has inherent authority to consider her motion does not transform the motion into a motion that delays rendition. See City of Palm Bay v. Palm Bay Greens, LLC, 969 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (rejecting argument that administrative agency’s inherent authority to reconsider its orders transforms an unauthorized motion for rehearing into a motion that delays rendition). We reject the appellant’s argument that equitable tolling applies without further comment.

Accordingly, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the merits of this appeal.

DISMISSED.

WEBSTER, BENTON, and POLSTON, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw