Nesslein v. Nesslein

672 So. 2d 582, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 3983, 1996 WL 185115
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 17, 1996·No. No. 95-2687·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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

672 So. 2d 582 (Nesslein v. Nesslein) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fernando Colmenares v. Pablo Dario Castillo
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
Lopez v. Department of Revenue
201 So. 3d 119 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Bigley
120 So. 3d 1265 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2013)
Capone v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.
116 So. 3d 363 (Supreme Court of Florida, 2013)
Migliore v. Migliore
717 So. 2d 1077 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1998)