Meyerson v. Texsol, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-334,80-334 |
| Parties | Sol W. MEYERSON, d/b/a Galleria Fashions, Petitioner, v. TEXSOL, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Greene & Cooper and Joan M. Bolotin, Miami, for petitioner.
Stabinski, Funt, Levine & Vega and Regina F. Zelonker, Miami, for respondent.
Before HENDRY, NESBITT and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
This petition for certiorari seeks review of an order of the Circuit Court for Dade County, entered in its appellate capacity, dismissing an appeal from the County Court of Dade County.
The order of dismissal under review reads as follows:
This is an appeal from a post decretal order of civil contempt entered on March 5, 1979. Notice of Appeal was filed on April 12, 1979. Appellant's "Motion to Set Aside Order and Award of Fees", filed in the trial court on March 15 and denied on April 2, did not toll the time required for filing a notice of appeal from the order of March 5. Even if we consider the aforesaid motion to be a motion for rehearing, it is not authorized by Rule 1.530 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and, ergo, does not toll the appeal period during its pendency. The time for taking an appeal is tolled when a timely motion for rehearing is directed to an order granting summary judgment or a final judgment in a non-jury trial. The order of civil contempt sub judice is not in either category. It is ordered sua sponte that the appeal be and is hereby dismissed. See Wagner v. Bieley, 263 So.2d 1 (Fla.1972).
It is petitioner's contention that the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of law in holding (1) that the motion to set aside order and award of fees filed in the trial court on March 15, 1979, and denied on April 2, 1979, did not toll the time required for filing a notice of appeal from the order of March 5, 1979; (2) that even if the motion be considered a motion for rehearing, it was not authorized by Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530, and thus did not toll the period during its pendency.
We find merit in petitioner's contentions and quash the order of the circuit court dismissing the appeal as untimely. Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So.2d 1162 (Fla.1979); Clearwater Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Sampson, 336 So.2d 78 (Fla.1976); Khem-Troll, Inc. v. Edelman, 351 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Hall v. Ricardo, 331 So.2d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Jones v. Denmark, 259 So.2d 198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972);...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Security Bank, N.A. v. BellSouth Advertising & Pub. Corp.
...within 10 days after entry of a final order, will be treated as a timely motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530. Meyerson v. Texsol, Inc., 385 So.2d 5, 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); see Griffin v. Tauber-Manon Associates, Inc., 452 So.2d 577, 578 n. 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); see also Salam v. Benmelech,......
-
Arvida Corp. v. Hewitt, 82-602
...Association v. Sampson, 336 So.2d 78 (Fla.1976); Khem-Troll, Inc. v. Edelman, 351 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Meyerson v. Texsol, Inc., 385 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). To have such an order there necessarily must be an existing judgment. That is not the case Fourth, petitioner inadverte......
-
Griffin v. Tauber-Manon Associates, Inc., TAUBER-MANON
...does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation."2 The appellees' reliance on Meyerson v. Texsol, Inc., 385 So.2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) is misplaced. In that case, the motion designated as one to set aside a final order was in fact filed within ten days so that ......