Hawthorne Industries, Inc. v. Transohio Savings Bank

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hawthorne Industries, Inc. v. Transohio Savings Bank

573 So. 2d 211, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 589, 1991 WL 7935

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 30, 1991

DocketNo. 90-0168

StatusPublished

This text of 573 So. 2d 211 (Hawthorne Industries, Inc. v. Transohio Savings Bank) 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

Hawthorne Industries, Inc. v. Transohio Savings Bank, 573 So. 2d 211, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 589, 1991 WL 7935 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

■ We grant appellant’s motion for rehearing and substitute the following opinion:

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL

We grant appellee’s motion to dismiss this appeal. The trial court entered an order that appointed a receiver, but appellant did not timely appeal that order. Instead, forty days after rendition of the order, appellant filed a motion to vacate which only argued the merits of the order. The trial judge denied the motion and this appeal followed.

In the absence of any allegation of mistake or excusable neglect, appellant’s motion to vacate is tantamount to an untimely motion for rehearing and should have been stricken. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b). In any event, to allow appellant to appeal the order denying its motion to vacate gives appellant more time to file an appeal of the order appointing the receiver than allowed by our appellate rules. Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(b).

Accordingly, we order that this appeal be dismissed.

LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur. POLEN, J., concurs in result only.

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