Opinion
No. 3D23-0076.
02-15-2023
Panzegna WOOD, Appellant, v. Alexander WOOD, et al., Appellees.
Panzegna Wood, in proper person. Lampariello Law Group LLP, and Joshua Christensen (Royal Palm Beach), for appellee Alexander Wood. Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
Panzegna Wood, in proper person.
Lampariello Law Group LLP, and Joshua Christensen (Royal Palm Beach), for appellee Alexander Wood.
Before HENDON, MILLER, and LOBREE, JJ.
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Panzegna Wood, challenges a nonfinal order denying a motion to vacate an order of dismissal and the denial of rehearing on the same. Because appellant failed to timely appeal the underlying order denying relief, the motion for rehearing did not toll rendition, and the order denying rehearing is not independently reviewable, we lack jurisdiction to adjudicate this appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) ("Orders disposing of motions for rehearing or motions that suspend rendition are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order ...."); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) ("Motions for rehearing directed to [orders entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment] are not authorized under these rules and therefore will not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal."); New Day Miami, LLC v. Beach Devs., LLC, 225 So.3d 372, 375-77 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding no jurisdiction to review trial court's order denying relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b) because appellant's successive motion seeking rehearing did not toll time for filing notice of appeal); Lawrence v. Marina Tower of Turnberry Isle Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 323 So.3d 271, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (finding lack of jurisdiction where appellant's notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the rendition of order discharging lis pendens and appellant's motion to vacate order did not toll rendition of same); Suntrust Bank v. Hodges, 12 So.3d 1278, 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (dismissing appeal where appellant sought relief from order denying motion for rehearing on its motion for relief from final judgment, which did not toll the running of thirty day period to file notice of appeal); Perez v. Saima Grp. Corp., 347 So.3d 421, 422 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) ("Because motions for rehearing directed toward orders denying rule 1.540(b) motions are generally not authorized, such a motion does not toll the time period to appeal the underlying order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion, and an order denying such a rehearing motion is not separately reviewable from the order denying the rule 1.540(b) motion."); Frantz v. Moore, 772 So.2d 581, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (same).
Appeal dismissed.