Nesslein v. Nesslein

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nesslein v. Nesslein

672 So. 2d 582, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3983, 1996 WL 185115

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 17, 1996

DocketNo. 95-2687

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 672 So. 2d 582 (Nesslein v. Nesslein) 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

Nesslein v. Nesslein, 672 So. 2d 582, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3983, 1996 WL 185115 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Brem Nesslein appeals from a final order of the trial court dismissing her motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration as being untimely served under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) because the envelope which contained opposing counsel’s copy of the motion was postmarked several days after the time for rehearing. We reverse. Ms. Nesslein’s motion was timely served, as was evidenced by the certificate of service on the motion itself. The certificate of service is prima facie proof that service was effectuated on the date sworn to by counsel. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.080(f). A postal cancellation date is not sufficient to rebut the prima facie proof of compliance with Rule 1.080(f). Mr. Martinez, Inc. v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 558 So.2d 153,154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Reversed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Brem Nesslein appeals from a final order of the trial court dismissing her motion for rehearing and/or reconsideration as being untimely served under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b) because the envelope which contained opposing counsel’s copy of the motion was postmarked several days after the time for rehearing. We reverse. Ms. Nesslein’s motion was timely served, as was evidenced by the certificate of service on the motion itself. The certificate of service is prima facie proof that service was effectuated on the date sworn to by counsel. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.080(f). A postal cancellation date is not sufficient to rebut the prima facie proof of compliance with Rule 1.080(f). Mr. Martinez, Inc. v. Ponce De Leon Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 558 So.2d 153,154 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

672 So. 2d 582, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3983, 1996 WL 185115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nesslein-v-nesslein-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack