Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 92-1638
| Decision Date | 15 September 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1638,92-1638 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D2435 LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, Appellant, v. Marie Ruth REITZES and Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven E. Siff, McDermott, Will & Emery, Miami, for appellant.
Andrew S. Berman, Young, Franklin, Berman & Karpf, P.A., North Miami Beach, for appellees.
AFFIRMED.
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Appellant has filed a motion for rehearing in this cause pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.330, notwithstanding this court's per curiam affirmance without opinion. We deny the motion.
Rule 9.330 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Time for Filing; Contents; Reply. A motion for rehearing, clarification, or certification may be filed within 15 days of an order or within such other time set by the court. A motion for rehearing or clarification shall state with particularity the points of law or fact that the court has overlooked or misapprehended. The motion shall not re-argue the merits of the court's order....
(Emphasis added.)
We find nothing in the instant motion for rehearing that appellant did not argue in his briefs or in oral argument. The motion does what Rule 9.330(a) proscribes; it re-argues the merits of the case. See Seslow v. Seslow, 625 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Jacobs v. Wainwright, 450 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062, 105 S.Ct. 545, 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984). Motions for rehearing filed under these circumstances are particularly troubling in light of Whipple v. State, 431 So.2d 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983), and its progeny. Despite all that has been written to discourage the abuse of motion practice, motions for rehearing continue "to occupy a singular status of abuse" 1 in our court system. An inordinately high number of motions for rehearing are filed in this court and the great majority violate Rule 9.330(a). The only explanation we can fathom for this abuse of motion practice is that too many attorneys are not engaging in any meaningful consideration of the intended purpose of the rule as it applies, or does not apply, to their unsuccessful appeal. It appears that counsel are utilizing the motion for rehearing and/or clarification as a last resort to persuade this court to change its mind, or to express their displeasure with this court's conclusion. This is not the purpose of Rule 9.330. 2 It should be noted that the filing of Rule 9.330 motions should be done under very limited circumstances; it is the exception to the norm. The Second District wrote in Parker v. Baker, 499 So.2d 843 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and we agree, that if this abuse of motion practice perseveres, "the fear might arise that all motions for rehearing would, at least initially, be viewed with skepticism by a busy court." Id. at 848. The same court had earlier stated in Jackson v. United States Aviation Underwriters, 466 So.2d 1119 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), albeit to no avail:
In each instance of the Rule's misuse, the time and effort of three judges is wasted, not to mention the time, energy and effort of the Clerk's office and the other persons who function in the court's processes. It is our hope, and certainly expectation, that the bar will heed the Rule's command that the "motion shall not reargue the merits of the court's order." The instant motion is a paradigm of the abuse giving rise to our reaction.
Id. at 1119-1120 (emphasis added). We find the oft-quoted passage from Judge Wigginton's opinion in State v. Green, 105 So.2d 817 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958), cert. discharged, 112 So.2d 571 (Fla.1959), to be particularly instructive here:
Certainly it is not the function of a petition for rehearing to furnish a medium through which counsel may advise the court that they disagree with its conclusion, to reargue matters already discussed in briefs and oral argument and necessarily considered by the court, or to request the court to change its mind...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnes v. State, 98-0299.
...545, 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984) ("A motion for rehearing shall not reargue the merits of the Court's order."); Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So.2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Seslow v. Seslow, 625 So.2d 1248 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Whipple v. State, 431 So.2d 1011, 1013 (Fla. 2nd DCA More ......
-
State v. Daley
...court to change its mind as to a matter which has already received the careful attention of the judges." Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes , 631 So. 2d 1100, 1101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (quoting State ex rel. Jaytex Realty Co. v. Green , 105 So. 2d 817, 818–19 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) ). GROSS, J......
-
Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla.
...what [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.330(a) proscribes; it re-argues the merits of the case." Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1100, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citations omitted). "It appears that counsel are utilizing the motion for rehearing and/or clarification as a......
-
Hicks v. Am. Integrity Ins. Co. of Fla.
...what [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.330(a) proscribes; it re-argues the merits of the case." Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1100, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (citations omitted). "It appears that counsel are utilizing the motion for rehearing and/or clarification as a......
-
Appellate motions for rehearing: when is enough really enough?
...skepticism that currently surrounds rehearing motions will erode only through restraint. [1] See Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1100, 1100 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1993); Parker v. Baker, 499 So. 2d 843, 847 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. [2] See, e.g., Whipple v. State, 431 So. 2d 1011, 1013 (Fl......
-
Top 10 appellate mistakes (or why you need an appellate specialist).
...v. Clemente, 685 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1996), rev. denied, 694 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 1997). (26) Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1993); Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. (27) Polyglycoat Corp. v. Hirsch Distrib., Inc.,......
-
Feng Shui Your Appeal: Create the Energy to Succeed.
...The courts and the rules of appellate procedure do not favor them. As the court explained in Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1100, 1100-01 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993): "Despite all that has been written to discourage the abuse of motion practice, motions for rehearing continue to oc......