![]() ![]() Motions for “rehearing” pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 apply only to final judgments and “those orders that partake of the character of a final judgment, i.e., orders that complete the judicial labor on a portion of the cause.” Motions for “reconsideration” apply to nonfinal, interlocutory orders, and are based on a trial court’s “inherent authority to reconsider and, if deemed appropriate, alter or retract any of its nonfinal rulings prior to entry of the final judgment or order terminating an action. Motions for rehearing and motions for reconsideration are two distinct motions and, though they are often confused, they do not overlap. The Court held that since the Modification Order was not a final order, the trial court had the inherent power to reconsider its interlocutory order at any time. ![]() ( The rule was since amended to allow 15 days for service of a motion for rehearing). ![]() But then the Reconsideration Order would have been untimely, because at the time Rule 1.530 required that a motion for rehearing be served no later than 10 days after entry of judgment. If the Modification Order had been a final judgment, then it would be subject to a Rule 1.530 motion for rehearing. The Reconsideration Motion was filed 12 days after the trial court entered its order modifying the magistrate’s report and recommendation. The Mother’s Petition sought review of the trial court’s order granting the Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration. Whether the Modification Order was a final order is important in this case, because it is determinative of the next issue the appellate court decided - whether the Grandmother’s “Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration” (the “Reconsideration Motion”) was timely and authorized. The trial court rejected one party’s exceptions and accepted some of the other party’s exceptions, but the resulting order on the recommendation merely stated “the Report … is hereby modified….” Because the trial court “modified” the magistrate’s report but did not enter judgment, the order modifying the report (“the Modification Order”) was not a final order. In this case, both parties did file exceptions, and the trial court ruled on them, but the effect of that ruling was not a final judgment. Merely “approving” the magistrate’s report is not sufficient to effect an appealable final judgment. While a magistrate’s report is more than a mere recommendation, it is not a final judgment, as magistrates lack the authority to enter final judgments….Even when no exceptions are filed, the trial court is “duty bound to examine and consider the evidence for itself and to make a judicial determination as to whether under the law and facts the court is justified in entering the judgment recommended” by the magistrate…. The opinion lays out in detail the legal and procedural effect of an issue being heard by a magistrate. While there is no need to go into the nitty gritty of the underlying facts of the dispute, the decision today provides great insight into several issues of broad application: (a) The role of magistrates in proceedings before a trial court, (b) the important differences between rehearing and reconsideration at the trial court level, and (c) jurisdiction over writs of certiorari and mandamus. The underlying dispute is a complicated child custody battle between a Mother and Grandmother. It’s even nicer when you happen to know the prevailing party, and know the rules as applied helped the good guys. Every once in a while a case comes along that is just a treasure trove of procedural goodness. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |