Bailey v. Mobile Home Park Realty, Inc., 90-00916

• Decision Date: 19 April 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-00916,90-00916
• Citation: 16 Fla. L. Weekly 1064,579 So.2d 198
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Parties: Harold BAILEY and Wilma Bailey, Appellants, v. MOBILE HOME PARK REALTY, INC., Appellee. 579 So.2d 198, 16 Fla. L. Week. 1064

Page 198

579 So.2d 198

Harold BAILEY and Wilma Bailey, Appellants, v. MOBILE HOME PARK REALTY, INC., Appellee.

No. 90-00916.

579 So.2d 198, 16 Fla. L. Week. 1064

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District.

April 19, 1991.

Rehearing Denied May 24, 1991.

Howard C. Batt, P.A., Clearwater, for appellants.

Brian A. Bolves of Rydberg, Goldstein & Bolves, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

RYDER, Judge.

The appellants, the Baileys, contend that the trial court erred by denying their post-trial motion titled "Renewed Motion for Directed Verdict, Motion in Arrest of Judgment and Alternative Motion to Vacate Verdict." We decline to address the issues raised in this appeal and dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, because the notice of appeal was untimely.

In order to determine whether the notice of appeal was untimely, it is necessary to understand the chronology of the proceedings in this case. The jury verdict was returned and filed on November 30, 1989. Thereafter, the final judgment was entered on December 8, 1989 and filed December 11, 1989. The Baileys served their motion on December 11, 1989 and it was filed on December 12, 1989. The order denying their motion was filed on February 26, 1990. Subsequently, on March 26, 1990, the Baileys filed a notice of appeal, 106 days after the final judgment was filed. The question is whether the Baileys' motion extended the time to appeal. Because the Baileys filed a three-in-one motion, a motion in arrest of judgment, a renewed motion for directed verdict and an alternative motion to vacate verdict, it is necessary to examine each one separately to determine if one of the three could extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.

First, the renewed motion for directed verdict was untimely. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.480(b) provides that "[w]ithin ten days after the reception of a verdict a party who has moved for a directed verdict may move to have the verdict and any judgment entered thereon set aside...." The time period for filing this motion expired on December 11. ¹ While the Baileys served their motion on December 11, it was not filed until December 12. Rule 1.480 is unlike the rehearing rule which provides for a rehearing motion to be served within ten days after the verdict. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530. Therefore, the renewed motion is untimely and did not extend the time of appeal.

Second, while a motion in arrest of judgment will suspend the time for filing a notice of appeal, it has to be served after the verdict is received, but before the judgment is entered. Fla.R.App.P. 9.020; Harrington v. Bowman, 102 Fla. 339, 136 So. 229 (1931), modified, 106 Fla. 86, 143 So. 651 (1932) Here, the judgment was entered on December 8, 1989, thus making the...