BEASLEY v. BANK (2022)

Upon consideration, the Court hereby dismisses this appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as one taken from a non-appealable order. 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.”). See also Samar v. Tenet Fla. Physician Servs., LLC, 317 So. 3d 187 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); Skaf v. Skaf, 491 So. 2d 1265, 1266 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (“[T]his court has no jurisdiction to review the trial court's nonfinal order denying the husband's motion for rehearing because Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(4) bans review of orders denying motions for rehearing because these motions suspend rendition.”); Seigler v. Bell, 148 So. 3d 473, 479 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (“Nomenclature does not control, and motions for either ‘rehearing’ or ‘reconsideration’ aimed at final judgments shall be treated as rule 1.530 motions for rehearing, while motions aimed at nonfinal orders shall be treated as motions for reconsideration.”).

EMAS, LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ., concur.