Case Name: HAWTHORNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. TRANSOHIO SAVINGS BANK, an Ohio savings bank, P.O.P.B.E.P., Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, et al., Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1991-01-30
Citations: 573 So. 2d 211
Docket Number: No. 90-0168
Parties: HAWTHORNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. TRANSOHIO SAVINGS BANK, an Ohio savings bank, P.O.P.B.E.P., Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, et al., Appellees.
Judges: LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 573
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
HAWTHORNE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, v. TRANSOHIO SAVINGS BANK, an Ohio savings bank, P.O.P.B.E.P., Ltd., a Florida limited partnership, et al., Appellees.
No. 90-0168.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Jan. 30, 1991.
Stephen L. Cook, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Douglas D. Chunn of Smith & Hulsey, Jacksonville, for appellee Transohio Sav. Bank.

Opinion:
ON REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
We grant appellant's motion for rehearing and substitute the following opinion:
ON MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL
We grant appellee's motion to dismiss this appeal. The trial court entered an order that appointed a receiver, but appellant did not timely appeal that order. Instead, forty days after rendition of the order, appellant filed a motion to vacate which only argued the merits of the order. The trial judge denied the motion and this appeal followed.
In the absence of any allegation of mistake or excusable neglect, appellant's motion to vacate is tantamount to an untimely motion for rehearing and should have been stricken. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b). In any event, to allow appellant to appeal the order denying its motion to vacate gives appellant more time to file an appeal of the order appointing the receiver than allowed by our appellate rules. Fla.R. App.P. 9.130(b).
Accordingly, we order that this appeal be dismissed.
LETTS and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
POLEN, J., concurs in result only.