Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Seminole County
| Decision Date | 25 October 1974 |
| Docket Number | TRI-STATE,No. 73-696,73-696 |
| Citation | 302 So.2d 168 |
| Parties | SYSTEMS, INC., Appellant, v. SEMINOLE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William D. Rowland, Winter Park, for appellant.
Howard R. Marsee, of Pitts, Eubanks, Ross & Rumberger, Sanford, for appellee.
Appellee Seminole County sought to enjoin appellant Tri-State Systems, Inc., from constructing signs along Interstate Highway 4 in said county without a building permit. By counterclaim appellant sought to require appellee to issue it a belated permit to complete certain construction already commenced.
The case was tried on February 16, 1973, on the amended complaint and answer, the counterclaim having been severed. On April 6, 1973, prior to the entry of any judgment or order, appellant filed a motion for rehearing directed to certain matters occurring at trial. On April 9, 1973, the trial court rendered an 'Opinion and Order' in which he reviewed the pleadings, the facts and applicable law, announced his conclusions, and directed the preparation of 'an appropriate order.' On April 17, 1973, appellant filed a motion for rehearing directed to the 'Opinion and Order' of April 9, 1973. On May 2, 1973, the court rendered a final judgment for mandatory injunction. On May 29, 1973, the court entered an order denying appellant's motions for rehearing. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on June 6, 1973, directed to the judgment of May 2, 1973, and the order of May 29, 1973, which denied the motions for rehearing that had been filed in April.
We perceive a threshold question which precludes consideration of the merits of this appeal. The notice of appeal seeks to have reviewed the final judgment rendered May 2, 1973, and the order entered May 29, 1973, denying the motions for rehearing. The time for appeal from the final judgment rendered May 2, 1973, expired on June 1, 1973, unless such time was tolled by an appropriate petition for rehearing. There was no such petition or motion filed. Appellant's first motion for rehearing, filed April 5, 1973, was not directed to any order or judgment, for none had been entered. The authority for filing a motion for rehearing is Rule 1.530, RCP. It authorizes such a motion within ten days after the entry of a judgment in a nonjury trial. It is apparent the rule does not contemplate such a motion absent a written judgment.
The second motion for rehearing,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Zimbrick, In re
...to writing. Two cases, Karl A. Kandell Associates, Inc. v. Urbanek, 391 So.2d 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) and Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Seminole County, 302 So.2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), suggest that a premature motion is a nullity which does not suspend rendition of a final order. Today we r......
-
Florida Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Kimmitt, 79-1760
...a verdict in the jury trial below was timely under Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(b). The case of Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Seminole County, 302 So.2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), does not require dismissal of this appeal. The Tri-State case was a nonjury matter, and Rule of Civil Procedure 1.5......
-
Howard v. McAuley
...a "nullity" in that it was filed "prematurely," i.e., before rendition of the order denying his motion. See Tri-State Systems v. Seminole County, 302 So.2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Appellee responds that appellant's alternative contentions miss the mark since he believes that, placing subst......
-
Bass v. Jones, 87-587
...motion under Fla.Civ.P. 1.530 having a tolling effect on the time for filing the notice of appeal. See Tri-State Systems, Inc. v. Seminole County, 302 So.2d 168 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). However, we decline to so construe the motion, and construe it instead as one directed at the final summary j......