COLVIN v. LONGORIA (2023)

Crystal Colvin seeks review of four orders: a six-part August 28, 2022, order that disposed of multiple motions; a September 2, 2022, order denying Colvin's emergency motion for stay, which the trial court construed as a motion for rehearing directed to its August 28, 2022, order; a September 20, 2022, order denying Colvin's successive motion for rehearing; and a September 21, 2022, order denying yet another successive “emergency” motion for rehearing. The trial court entered each of these orders in postjudgment proceedings of an eviction case. We lack jurisdiction to review any of these orders.

Because Colvin did not file her notice of appeal challenging the court's August 28, 2022, order until more than thirty days after rendition of that order, her appeal is untimely. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). To the extent the court's August 28 order was a final order, Colvin's first motion for rehearing tolled rendition until September 2, 2022, but Colvin did not file her notice of appeal until October 18, 2022. Her successive motions for rehearing were both unauthorized and failed to further toll rendition. See, e.g., Mortellaro & Sinadinos, PLLC v. Countrywide Home Loans, 14 So. 3d 278, 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).

Further, because orders on rehearing are not separately reviewable from the underlying order, we lack jurisdiction to review the trial court's September 20, 2022, order denying Colvin's successive motion for rehearing and its September 21, 2022, order denying Colvin's emergency motion for rehearing. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4); Grant v. Jones, 933 So. 2d 32, 33 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (“[A]n order denying a motion for rehearing is not independently reviewable.”); see also Jockey Club Condo. Apartments, Inc. v. B.V.K., LLC, 237 So. 3d 1118, 1122–23 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (dismissing appeal and applying rule 9.130(a)(4)’s prohibition on separate review of orders on rehearing to an order disposing of a rehearing motion that failed to toll rendition of the underlying order).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.

NORTHCUTT and LUCAS, JJ., Concur.