PANZEGNA WOOD v. ALEXANDER WOOD

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 15, 2023
• Docket: 23-0076
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 15, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0076 Lower Tribunal No. 22-6950 ________________

Panzegna Wood, Appellant,

vs.

Alexander Wood, et al., Appellees.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Reemberto Diaz, Judge.

Panzegna Wood, in proper person.

Lampariello Law Group LLP, and Joshua Christensen (Royal Palm Beach), for appellee Alexander Wood.

Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL Appellant, Panzegna Wood, challenges a nonfinal order denying a

motion to vacate an order of dismissal and the denial of rehearing on the

same. Because appellant failed to timely appeal the underlying order

denying relief, the motion for rehearing did not toll rendition, and the order

denying rehearing is not independently reviewable, we lack jurisdiction to

adjudicate this appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) (“Orders disposing

of motions for rehearing or motions that suspend rendition are not reviewable

separately from a review of the final order . . . .”); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5)

(“Motions for rehearing directed to [orders entered on an authorized and

timely motion for relief from judgment] are not authorized under these rules

and therefore will not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal.”); New Day

Miami, LLC v. Beach Devs., LLC, 225 So. 3d 372, 375–77 (Fla. 3d DCA

2017) (holding no jurisdiction to review trial court’s order denying relief

pursuant to rule 1.540(b) because appellant’s successive motion seeking

rehearing did not toll time for filing notice of appeal); Lawrence v. Marina

Tower of Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass’n, Inc., 323 So. 3d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2021) (finding lack of jurisdiction where appellant’s notice of appeal was

not filed within thirty days of the rendition of order discharging lis pendens

and appellant’s motion to vacate order did not toll rendition of same);

Suntrust Bank v. Hodges, 12 So. 3d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)

2 (dismissing appeal where appellant sought relief from order denying motion

for rehearing on its motion for relief from final judgment, which did not toll the

running of thirty day period to file notice of appeal); Perez v. Saima Grp.

Corp., 347 So. 3d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Because motions for

rehearing directed toward orders denying rule 1.540(b) motions are generally

not authorized, such a motion does not toll the time period to appeal the

underlying order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion, and an order denying

such a rehearing motion is not separately reviewable from the order denying

the rule 1.540(b) motion.”); Frantz v. Moore, 772 So. 2d 581, 581 (Fla. 1st

DCA 2000) (same).

Appeal dismissed.