Biehle v. Biehle

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Biehle v. Biehle

693 So. 2d 144, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5393, 1997 WL 255331

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 16, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1034

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 693 So. 2d 144 (Biehle v. Biehle) 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

Biehle v. Biehle, 693 So. 2d 144, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5393, 1997 WL 255331 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this pending child custody proceeding, petitioner Brian Biehle seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order abating proceedings. We summarily dismiss his petition for writ of certiorari sua sponte as untimely because he relied upon an unauthorized motion for rehearing.

The trial court’s abatement order in the instant case is plainly interlocutory. The problem for Mr. Biehle is that he filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing, which does not toll the time for seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order. See, e.g., Vliegenthart v. Grover, 575 So.2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (motion for rehearing of interlocutory order is unauthorized and does not toll the time for seeking certiorari review). The trial court’s order was rendered on February 26, 1997. However, Mr. Biehle filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing on March 9, 1997, which the trial court denied on April 3,1997. He failed to file the instant petition for writ of certiorari until April 25, 1997 when it should have been filed by March 28, 1997. Accordingly, his petition must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.

DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this pending child custody proceeding, petitioner Brian Biehle seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order abating proceedings. We summarily dismiss his petition for writ of certiorari sua sponte as untimely because he relied upon an unauthorized motion for rehearing.

The trial court’s abatement order in the instant case is plainly interlocutory. The problem for Mr. Biehle is that he filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing, which does not toll the time for seeking appellate review of an interlocutory order. See, e.g., Vliegenthart v. Grover, 575 So.2d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (motion for rehearing of interlocutory order is unauthorized and does not toll the time for seeking certiorari review). The trial court’s order was rendered on February 26, 1997. However, Mr. Biehle filed an unauthorized motion for rehearing on March 9, 1997, which the trial court denied on April 3,1997. He failed to file the instant petition for writ of certiorari until April 25, 1997 when it should have been filed by March 28, 1997. Accordingly, his petition must be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.

DISMISSED.

DAUKSCH, GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 So. 2d 144, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 5393, 1997 WL 255331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/biehle-v-biehle-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack