King v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.
This text of 132 So. 3d 1233 (King v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Florida, Inc.) 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
Janice Y. King appeals a final order granting summary judgment in favor of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, Inc., appellee. On appeal, appellant does not argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. Rather, she asserts that the trial court erred by denying her motion for leave to amend the pleadings to add a count based on promissory estoppel, which motion was filed as a part of her motion for rehearing. Appellant filed her notice of appeal, however, before the trial court ruled on her motions. Under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(h),1 appellant is deemed to have abandoned her motion for rehearing, which included the motion for leave to amend, by filing a notice of appeal before the “filing of a signed, written order disposing of all such motions.” See also Jonsson v. Dickinson, 46 So.3d 1016, 1016-17 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (holding former husband abandoned post-judgment motion for rehearing when he filed notice of appeal before the trial court ruled on the motion). Even though the trial court denied appellant’s motion after the filing of the notice of appeal, an appellate court is without jurisdiction to review an order rendered after [1234]*1234the filing of the notice of appeal. See, e.g., Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So.2d 258, 259-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Because Appellant has failed to offer any basis for reversal of the only final order that is presently within this court’s scope of review, the trial court’s summary judgment order must be affirmed. See Moecker v. Antoine, 845 So.2d 904, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (“It is the burden of the appealing party to demonstrate a basis in the record for overturning the presumptively correct decision of the trial court.”).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
132 So. 3d 1233, 2014 WL 784264, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 2574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/king-v-blue-cross-blue-shield-of-florida-inc-fladistctapp-2014.