Court Opinion

ID: 9906242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-01 15:03:49.419828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:11.639060
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-1279
                   LT Case No. 2022-CA-379
                 _____________________________

ADVANCED BIOMEDICAL, INC., a
Florida Corporation,

    Appellant,

    v.

1551 PROPERTIES, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability
Company,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On Appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.
Steven G. Rogers, Judge.

Joseph C. Shoemaker, of Bogin, Munns, & Munns, P.A.,
Leesburg, for Appellant.

Robert A. Heekin, Jr., of The Law Offices of Rob Heekin, Jr., P.A.,
Jacksonville, for Appellee.

                        December 1, 2023

LAMBERT, J.

    Appellant, which was the defendant below in the lawsuit
brought against it by Appellee for breach of a lease agreement
regarding nonresidential property, challenges the trial court’s
December 13, 2022 omnibus order that, in pertinent part, denied
its amended motion to vacate or set aside the final default
judgment of eviction and possession. Appellant also appeals the
denial of its subsequent motion for rehearing or reconsideration of
this order.

     Although the issue of whether the jurisdiction of this court has
been timely invoked has not been raised by either party, we
conclude from our review of the record that the notice of appeal
was not timely filed. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. 1

     It is unnecessary to relate the procedural idiosyncrasies
complained of by Appellant in its initial brief that led to the entry
of the order under review as they do not affect our jurisdictional
analysis. On December 13, 2022, the trial court rendered its order
that, among other things, denied Appellant’s amended motion for
relief from the final default judgment of eviction and possession.
Such an order is reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.130(a)(5); however, to invoke the jurisdiction of this
court, Appellant was required to file its notice of appeal,
accompanied by any filing fees prescribed by law, with the clerk of
the lower court within thirty days of the December 13, 2022 order.
See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b).

    Appellant did not file a notice of appeal within the thirty days.
Instead, it filed a motion for rehearing or reconsideration of the
order, which the trial court denied by order dated February 21,
2023. Appellant thereafter filed its notice of appeal.

    Appellant’s notice of appeal is untimely because its motion for
rehearing directed to the December 13, 2022 order that denied its
amended motion to vacate or set aside the final default judgment
was unauthorized and did not toll the time for filing the notice of
appeal. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5). Accordingly, we dismiss

    1 An appellate court has the independent duty to determine

whether it has jurisdiction to consider an appeal. Shassian v.
Riverwalk Park, LLC, 365 So. 3d 484, 486 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
(citing Medeiros v. Firth, 200 So. 3d 121, 122 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)).

                                 2
this appeal because our jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this
appeal was not timely invoked. See Frantz v. Moore, 772 So. 2d
581, 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (dismissing an appeal for lack of
jurisdiction “[b]ecause a motion for rehearing of an order denying
a motion for relief from judgment is not authorized, [so] the motion
for rehearing did not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal”).

    APPEAL DISMISSED.

HARRIS and PRATT, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 3