Harris v. Trust

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harris v. Trust

893 So. 2d 602, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 220, 2005 WL 94826

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 19, 2005

DocketNo. 4D04-4256

StatusPublished

This text of 893 So. 2d 602 (Harris v. Trust) 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

Harris v. Trust, 893 So. 2d 602, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 220, 2005 WL 94826 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

On Motion to Dismiss

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William J. Harris, appeals the September 15, 2004 order of the trial court denying his motion to reopen his case on grounds of fraud. This motion was brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Rather than immediately appeal that denial, Harris moved for reconsideration. This motion to reconsider was unauthorized and did not toll the time for appeal. See Frantz v. Moore, 772 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Intercoastal Marina Towers v. Suburban Bank, 506 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). His October 22, 2004 notice of appeal is therefore [603]*603untimely, depriving this court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED.

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

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

On Motion to Dismiss

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William J. Harris, appeals the September 15, 2004 order of the trial court denying his motion to reopen his case on grounds of fraud. This motion was brought pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. Rather than immediately appeal that denial, Harris moved for reconsideration. This motion to reconsider was unauthorized and did not toll the time for appeal. See Frantz v. Moore, 772 So.2d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Intercoastal Marina Towers v. Suburban Bank, 506 So.2d 1177 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). His October 22, 2004 notice of appeal is therefore [603]*603untimely, depriving this court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

DISMISSED.

STEVENSON, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

893 So. 2d 602, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 220, 2005 WL 94826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-trust-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack