JOSE SANZ v. MYRIAM SAENZ
This text of JOSE SANZ v. MYRIAM SAENZ (JOSE SANZ v. MYRIAM SAENZ) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 3, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-549 Lower Tribunal No. 21-14327 ________________
Jose Sanz, Appellant,
vs.
Myriam Saenz, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.
Spittler & Associates, P.A., and John J. Spittler, Jr., for appellant.
Richard J. Preira & Associates, and Richard J. Preira, for appellee.
Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.
On Motion to Dismiss
PER CURIAM. In this ongoing marriage dissolution action, appellant/husband Jose
Sanz, on March 27, 2023, filed a Notice of Appeal challenging that portion of
a January 12, 2023 trial court order (the “January 12 Order”) awarding
temporary professional fees and costs to appellee/wife Myriam Saenz. 1
The January 12 Order was an appealable, nonfinal order under Florida
Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)a. See Seward v. Seward, 676
So. 2d 49, 49 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Odeh v. Odeh, 347 So. 3d
376, 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).
Because the January 12 Order was nonfinal, appellant’s January 26,
2023 motion for rehearing directed toward the January 12 Order was
unauthorized and did not toll the rendition of the January 12 Order. Fla. R.
App. P. 9.130(a)(5). To invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction to review the
January 12 Order, therefore, appellant’s Notice of Appeal had to be filed
within thirty days after the rendition of the January 12 Order. Fla. R. App. P.
9.130(b).
Thus, appellant’s March 27, 2023 notice of appeal was untimely, and
we are compelled to grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as we are
1 The challenged order requires, among other things, that appellant pay $275,291.61 into appellee’s counsel’s trust “immediately upon entry of this Order.”
2 without appellate jurisdiction to review the January 12 Order. See Samara v.
Tenet Fla. Physician Servs., LLC, 317 So. 3d 187, 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).
Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
JOSE SANZ v. MYRIAM SAENZ, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jose-sanz-v-myriam-saenz-fladistctapp-2023.