BALTODANO v. BALTODANO (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Christina BALTODANO, Appellant, v. Oscar I. BALTODANO, Appellee.

No. 1D21-1778

Decided: February 02, 2022

Christina Baltodano, pro se, Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.

Christina Baltodano challenges an order that denied her petition for a domestic violence injunction. But the challenged order was on a motion for rehearing, so this appeal is unauthorized. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) (“Orders disposing of motions for rehearing ․ are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order.”). Although a timely motion for rehearing pushes back the deadline to challenge a final order, Baltodano's motion was untimely and failed to give her the extension. See Bramblett v. State, 15 So. 3d 839, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009). Because the appeal came more than thirty days after rendition of the final order, any challenge to the final order is untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). In short, we lack jurisdiction.

Dismissed.

Per Curiam.

B.L. Thomas, Nordby, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network