Florida Debtor
November 17, 2017, 10:38:59 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Florida Debtor - Now even better!
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: The Rehearing Rule: 1.530  (Read 4245 times)
fraudfighter
Moderator
Newbie
*****
Posts: 370


View Profile
« on: December 08, 2006, 12:40:56 PM »

Rule 1.530, the Motion for Rehearing of a Final Judgment rule, probably from Berman's book

Rule Inapplicable to Non-Dispositive, Interlocutory Orders or Orders for New Trial

Rule 1.530 does not provide a basis for reconsideration of a non-dispositive ruling or interlocutory order on a pretrial motion, but applies only to those motions directed to final judgments, as well as final orders that “partake of the character of a final judgment, i.e., orders that complete the judicial labor on a portion of the cause.”
Deal v. Deal, 783 So.2d 319, 321 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (on motion to dismiss) (“Rule 1.530 has been consistently construed to authorize rehearings only of orders and judgments which are final in nature.”);
Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So.2d 1386, 1390 n. 6 (Fla. 3rd DCA), review denied, 494 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 1986) (order denying a motion for relief from judgment, though final in nature, is not judgment within the meaning of Rule 1.530) (citing Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Assocs., 263 So.2d 1 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984);
Irwin v. Walker, 468 So.2d 241 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984).
See also Cape Coral Realty, Inc. v. Kroll, 804 So.2d 605, 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (treating an undesignated motion to set aside a final order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 1.420(e) for failure to prosecute as a timely motion for rehearing.).

The rule also allows for only one motion for rehearing, so that even if such a motion is denied “without prejudice”, the rule provides no authority for the filing of another motion for rehearing.
Arleo v. Garcia, 695 So.2d 862 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (citing Capital Bank v. Knuck, 537 So.2d 697, 698 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1989));
McMahon v. Carter, 818 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2002) (citing Arleo and Capital Bank.).
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!