From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Southwest Electric Supply v. Banfield

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 6, 1974
302 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

Opinion

No. 74-375.

November 6, 1974.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County, James R. Adams, J.

Allan L. McPeak, Naples, for appellant.

No appearance for appellees.


This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this interlocutory appeal since the same was untimely filed.

Appellant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) RCP to set aside an order of dismissal for lack of prosecution. This motion was denied on February 4, 1974. Instead of timely appealing this order by interlocutory appeal, appellant filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on February 25, 1974. Appellant filed its notice of appeal on March 22, 1974.

An order denying a motion to set aside an order of dismissal pursuant to Rule 1.540(b) RCP is an interlocutory order. Frank v. Amara, Fla.App.1st, 1970, 235 So.2d 537. A motion for reconsideration of an interlocutory order does not toll the time for seeking review of such order. Home News Publishing Company v. U-M Publishing, Inc., Fla.App.1st 1971, 246 So.2d 117; Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner Associates, Inc., Fla. 1972, 263 So.2d 1. The appeal, having been taken more than thirty days after the rendition of the order, is untimely.

Appeal dismissed sua sponte.

BOARDMAN and GRIMES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Southwest Electric Supply v. Banfield

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Nov 6, 1974
302 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)
Case details for

Southwest Electric Supply v. Banfield

Case Details

Full title:SOUTHWEST ELECTRIC SUPPLY, INC., APPELLANT, v. BILL BANFIELD, D/B/A BILL'S…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Nov 6, 1974

Citations

302 So. 2d 810 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1974)

Citing Cases

Miami Beef v. Search Recruit Int'l

Thus, the filing and pendency of a motion for reconsideration does not toll the time for taking an appeal.…

Khem-Troll, Inc. v. Edelman

That is what the Supreme Court said in Bland v. Mitchell, supra. We would have dismissed this appeal as…