Andres v. Indian Creek Phase III-B Homeowner's Ass'n

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Andres v. Indian Creek Phase III-B Homeowner's Ass'n

858 So. 2d 1222, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17066, 2003 WL 22658170

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-4152

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 858 So. 2d 1222 (Andres v. Indian Creek Phase III-B Homeowner's Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andres v. Indian Creek Phase III-B Homeowner's Ass'n, 858 So. 2d 1222, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17066, 2003 WL 22658170 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed his notice of appeal within thirty days from a final judgment of garnishment entered on October 17, 2002. The notice of appeal states that appellant is also appealing an order denying an amended emergency motion to dissolve the original permanent injunction granted in this case, which also awarded attorney’s fees. That order was entered on June 14, 2002. No appeal was filed within thirty days of that order. We conclude that an appeal from the June 14th order is untimely, because the order was not an interlocutory order in the garnishment proceeding but was a post-judgment motion directed to the original final judgment in this action. Whether we treat it as a post-judgment motion appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5) or a final order pursuant to Rule 9.110(a), an appeal from the order must be filed within thirty days of rendition for this court to have jurisdiction to review. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b); 9.130(b); Franchi v. Fla. Dep’t of Commerce, Div. of Employment Sec., 375 So.2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (noting failure to file within thirty-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect).

As all of the issues raised on appeal deal with the order denying the motion to dissolve the permanent injunction and an attack on the original final judgment, we have no jurisdiction to consider them. Appellant having raised no issue regarding the validity of the garnishment itself, the final judgment is affirmed.

GUNTHER, WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant filed his notice of appeal within thirty days from a final judgment of garnishment entered on October 17, 2002. The notice of appeal states that appellant is also appealing an order denying an amended emergency motion to dissolve the original permanent injunction granted in this case, which also awarded attorney’s fees. That order was entered on June 14, 2002. No appeal was filed within thirty days of that order. We conclude that an appeal from the June 14th order is untimely, because the order was not an interlocutory order in the garnishment proceeding but was a post-judgment motion directed to the original final judgment in this action. Whether we treat it as a post-judgment motion appealable pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5) or a final order pursuant to Rule 9.110(a), an appeal from the order must be filed within thirty days of rendition for this court to have jurisdiction to review. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.110(b); 9.130(b); Franchi v. Fla. Dep’t of Commerce, Div. of Employment Sec., 375 So.2d 1154, 1155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (noting failure to file within thirty-day period constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect).

As all of the issues raised on appeal deal with the order denying the motion to dissolve the permanent injunction and an attack on the original final judgment, we have no jurisdiction to consider them. Appellant having raised no issue regarding the validity of the garnishment itself, the final judgment is affirmed.

GUNTHER, WARNER and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

858 So. 2d 1222, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 17066, 2003 WL 22658170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/andres-v-indian-creek-phase-iii-b-homeowners-assn-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack