Court Opinion

ID: 9391865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 15:04:15.686178+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.389989
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed May 3, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D23-549
                       Lower Tribunal No. 21-14327
                          ________________

                                 Jose Sanz,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                              Myriam Saenz,
                                Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Christina
Marie DiRaimondo, Judge.

     Spittler & Associates, P.A., and John J. Spittler, Jr., for appellant.

     Richard J. Preira & Associates, and Richard J. Preira, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and LINDSEY, JJ.

                           On Motion to Dismiss

     PER CURIAM.
      In this ongoing marriage dissolution action, appellant/husband Jose

Sanz, on March 27, 2023, filed a Notice of Appeal challenging that portion of

a January 12, 2023 trial court order (the “January 12 Order”) awarding

temporary professional fees and costs to appellee/wife Myriam Saenz. 1

      The January 12 Order was an appealable, nonfinal order under Florida

Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)a. See Seward v. Seward, 676

So. 2d 49, 49 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); see also Odeh v. Odeh, 347 So. 3d

376, 378 (Fla. 5th DCA 2021).

      Because the January 12 Order was nonfinal, appellant’s January 26,

2023 motion for rehearing directed toward the January 12 Order was

unauthorized and did not toll the rendition of the January 12 Order. Fla. R.

App. P. 9.130(a)(5). To invoke this Court’s appellate jurisdiction to review the

January 12 Order, therefore, appellant’s Notice of Appeal had to be filed

within thirty days after the rendition of the January 12 Order. Fla. R. App. P.

9.130(b).

      Thus, appellant’s March 27, 2023 notice of appeal was untimely, and

we are compelled to grant appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal as we are

1
 The challenged order requires, among other things, that appellant pay
$275,291.61 into appellee’s counsel’s trust “immediately upon entry of this
Order.”

                                       2
without appellate jurisdiction to review the January 12 Order. See Samara v.

Tenet Fla. Physician Servs., LLC, 317 So. 3d 187, 189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021).

     Motion to dismiss granted; appeal dismissed.

                                     3