Aracely P. Cristobal and William Aday v. Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: November 6, 2024
• Docket: 3D2024-0149
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 6, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0149 Lower Tribunal No. 22-2698-CA-01 ________________

Aracely P. Cristobal and William Aday, Appellants,

vs.

Universal Property and Casualty Insurance Company, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge.

Gold Litigation, P.A., and Zalman Cole (Dania Beach), for appellants.

Russo Appellate Firm, P.A. and Elizabeth K. Russo, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, MILLER and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J. ON MOTION TO DISMISS

Aracely P. Cristobal and William Aday (collectively, the “Homeowners”)

challenge an order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and the

denial of rehearing on the same. Because the Homeowners failed to timely

appeal the underlying order denying relief, the motion for rehearing did not

toll rendition, and the order denying rehearing is not independently

reviewable, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App.

P. 9.130(a)(4) (“Orders disposing of motions for rehearing or motions that

suspend rendition are not reviewable separately from a review of the final

order . . . .”); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) (“Motions for rehearing directed to

[orders entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment]

are not authorized under these rules and therefore will not toll the time for

filing a notice of appeal.”); Wood v. Wood, 357 So. 3d 736, 736 (Fla. 3d DCA

2023) (“Appellant . . . challenges a nonfinal order denying a motion to vacate

an order of dismissal and the denial of rehearing on the same. Because

appellant failed to timely appeal the underlying order denying relief, the

motion for rehearing did not toll rendition, and the order denying rehearing is

not independently reviewable, we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate this

appeal.”); Perez v. Saima Grp. Corp., 347 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA

2022) (“Because motions for rehearing directed toward orders denying rule

2 1.540(b) motions are generally not authorized, such a motion does not toll

the time period to appeal the underlying order denying the rule 1.540(b)

motion, and an order denying such a rehearing motion is not separately

reviewable from the order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion. Accordingly, we

lack appellate jurisdiction to review the challenged order and grant

[appellee’s] motion to dismiss the appeal.”).

Dismissed.