Gold Coast Hollywood Corp. v. Semer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gold Coast Hollywood Corp. v. Semer

613 So. 2d 142, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1256, 1993 WL 20447

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 3, 1993

DocketNo. 92-2765

StatusPublished

This text of 613 So. 2d 142 (Gold Coast Hollywood Corp. v. Semer) 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

Gold Coast Hollywood Corp. v. Semer, 613 So. 2d 142, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1256, 1993 WL 20447 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order appealed, one requiring [143]*143a developer to turn over control of the unit/owners’ association, was entered July 9, 1992. Although appellants’ motion for rehearing was timely served, the non-final order is not one for which rehearing is authorized by Rule 1.530 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the filing of that motion did not have the effect, under Rule 9.020(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, of tolling the rendition date of the order. Thus, the notice of appeal, while filed within thirty days of the date the court entered an order denying the motion for rehearing, was filed more than thirty days after the July 9th order was rendered, and was therefore untimely. Colin v. State Department of Transportation, 423 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); City of Riviera Beach v. Clark, 388 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Appeal dismissed.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ„ and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order appealed, one requiring [143]*143a developer to turn over control of the unit/owners’ association, was entered July 9, 1992. Although appellants’ motion for rehearing was timely served, the non-final order is not one for which rehearing is authorized by Rule 1.530 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the filing of that motion did not have the effect, under Rule 9.020(g), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, of tolling the rendition date of the order. Thus, the notice of appeal, while filed within thirty days of the date the court entered an order denying the motion for rehearing, was filed more than thirty days after the July 9th order was rendered, and was therefore untimely. Colin v. State Department of Transportation, 423 So.2d 1020 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); City of Riviera Beach v. Clark, 388 So.2d 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

Appeal dismissed.

POLEN and FARMER, JJ„ and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

613 So. 2d 142, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 1256, 1993 WL 20447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gold-coast-hollywood-corp-v-semer-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack