Bak v. Bak

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Bak v. Bak

110 So. 3d 523, 2013 WL 1316036, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5350

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2013

DocketNo. 4D12-2133

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 110 So. 3d 523 (Bak v. Bak) 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

Bak v. Bak, 110 So. 3d 523, 2013 WL 1316036, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5350 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Itzhak Bak appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a status report order regarding reunifi[524]*524cation. We dismiss Itzhak’s appeal as untimely.

A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date an order is rendered, i.e., signed and filed with the clerk. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b), 9.020(h). The status report order Itzhak seeks to appeal was rendered on April 19, 2012, and the notice of appeal was filed on June 8, 2012, or fifty-one days after the status report order was rendered.

Before appealing, Itzhak moved for reconsideration of the status report order, and the trial court entered an order denying the motion. The order denying the motion for reconsideration was rendered on May 14, 2012, which was less than thirty days before the notice of appeal was filed. But while a timely motion for rehearing will suspend rendition of a final order until entry of the order disposing of the motion for rehearing, Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h), a motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of a non-final order because rehearing is not authorized for non-final orders. See Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The status report order entered by the trial court was not a final order ending the reunification proceedings; the order provided in part that there would be no further efforts to have Itzhak spend time with the children “until further written agreement of both parents and the GAL or until further Order of the court” and predicated future contact between Itzhak and the children upon the agreement of the therapists working with the children and Itzhak.

Failing to file a notice of appeal within the time limits “constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.” Hunt v. Forbes, 65 So.3d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because Itzhak failed to file the notice of appeal within thirty days of the rendition of the status report, we are required to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Itzhak Bak appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a status report order regarding reunifi[524]*524cation. We dismiss Itzhak’s appeal as untimely.

A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days of the date an order is rendered, i.e., signed and filed with the clerk. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b), 9.020(h). The status report order Itzhak seeks to appeal was rendered on April 19, 2012, and the notice of appeal was filed on June 8, 2012, or fifty-one days after the status report order was rendered.

Before appealing, Itzhak moved for reconsideration of the status report order, and the trial court entered an order denying the motion. The order denying the motion for reconsideration was rendered on May 14, 2012, which was less than thirty days before the notice of appeal was filed. But while a timely motion for rehearing will suspend rendition of a final order until entry of the order disposing of the motion for rehearing, Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h), a motion for rehearing does not suspend rendition of a non-final order because rehearing is not authorized for non-final orders. See Wegner v. Schillinger, 921 So.2d 854, 855 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). The status report order entered by the trial court was not a final order ending the reunification proceedings; the order provided in part that there would be no further efforts to have Itzhak spend time with the children “until further written agreement of both parents and the GAL or until further Order of the court” and predicated future contact between Itzhak and the children upon the agreement of the therapists working with the children and Itzhak.

Failing to file a notice of appeal within the time limits “constitutes an irremediable jurisdictional defect.” Hunt v. Forbes, 65 So.3d 133, 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Because Itzhak failed to file the notice of appeal within thirty days of the rendition of the status report, we are required to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

MAY, C.J., TAYLOR and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 So. 3d 523, 2013 WL 1316036, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bak-v-bak-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack