Hubert v. Division of Admin., State Dept. of Transp.

Decision Date02 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. 82-1815,82-1815
Citation425 So.2d 671
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Robert J. Shapiro, Tampa, for appellant.

Alan E. DeSerio and John H. Beck, Tallahassee, for appellee.



This court previously denied a motion to dismiss the above-styled appeal without opinion. We deny rehearing but think that the issue raised merits this opinion.

The motion to dismiss this appeal alleged that the appeal was untimely because the notice was filed more than 30 days from the order appealed from. Although there was a timely motion for rehearing, appellee contended that the motion was not an authorized motion and, thus, did not toll the time for filing the appeal. See Rule 9.020(g), Fla.R.App.P. Appellee relies on the general rule that rehearings are not authorized as to interlocutory or nonfinal orders. Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972).

The order involved in this case was a post-judgment order on attorneys' fees and costs. More specifically, appellee alleges conflict with Craft v. Clarembeaux, 162 So.2d 325 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Craft held that a cost order after final judgment was reviewable by interlocutory appeal. However, in Clearwater Federal Savings and Loan Assoc. v. Sampson, 336 So.2d 78, 79 (Fla.1976), the Florida Supreme Court made the following distinction:

Post-decretal orders are not true interlocutory orders, and perhaps the term "interlocutory" is a misnomer. Where an order after judgment is dispositive of any question, it becomes a final post-decretal order. To the extent that it completes the judicial labor on that portion of the cause after judgment, it becomes final as to that portion and should be treated as a final judgment, and, therefore, a Petition for Rehearing could be properly directed to such a post-decretal order which constitutes a final and distinct adjudication of rights which have not been adjudicated in the original final judgment.

Additionally, cases more recent than Craft have squarely held that an attorneys' fee order entered after final judgment is a final order sufficient to support a full appeal and subject to a motion for rehearing. Saul v. Basse, 399 So.2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); State, Dept. of Citrus v. Griffin, 332 So.2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976); Kucera v. Kucera, 330 So.2d 36 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). We see no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Caterpillar Indus., Inc. v. Keskes
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • July 29, 1994
  • Deal v. Deal
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • April 6, 2001
    ...682 So.2d 672 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Longo; Smith v. Weede, 433 So.2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).1 Hubert v. Division of Admin., State Dep't of Transp., 425 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Potucek. Here, the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the order being reviewed, but was fil......
  • Baker & Hostetler, Llp v. Swearingen
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 21, 2008
    ...898 So.2d 1120, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Bernstein v. Berrin, 516 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hubert v. Div. of Admin., State Dep't of Transp., 425 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). See also Morand v. Stoneburner, 516 So.2d 270 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987), review denied, 525 So.2d 879 (Fla.1988). S......
  • Chase v. Turner, 88-448
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 1, 1990
    ...of appeal. See, Velickovich v. Ricci, 391 So.2d 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), rev. den., 402 So.2d 614 (Fla.1981). Hubert v. Division of Administration, 425 So.2d 671 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the judgment appealed is in all AFFIRMED. SMITH and NIMMONS, JJ., concur. BARFIELD, J., dissents......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT