New Day Miami, LLC v. Beach Developers, LLC
225 So. 3d 372
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Beach Developers obtained a final foreclosure judgment on Oct. 4, 2016; New Day Miami, LLC (NDM) was the successful bidder at the foreclosure sale.
- Two defendants in the foreclosure (Brepega, LLC and Josemar Francisco) moved under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 to vacate the Oct. 4 judgment; the trial court granted that motion on Mar. 10, 2017, vacating the judgment and setting aside the sale to NDM.
- NDM, a third‑party bidder (later an intervenor), filed a timely rule 1.530 motion for rehearing of the Mar. 10 order; the trial court denied rehearing on Apr. 17, 2017.
- NDM filed a notice of appeal on May 9, 2017. Beach Developers moved to dismiss as untimely, arguing Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(5) bars tolling by rehearing motions directed at orders on motions for relief from judgment.
- This Court dismissed NDM’s appeal on June 9, 2017; NDM moved for reconsideration arguing the Mar. 10 order was final as to NDM and its rehearing motion therefore tolled rendition.
- The Court (on reconsideration) held it lacks jurisdiction to review the Mar. 10, 2017 order because rule 9.130(a)(5) prevents tolling of rendition by rehearing of orders on rule 1.540 motions, but permitted review of the Apr. 17, 2017 denial of rehearing because that rehearing did not suspend rendition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NDM's rehearing motion tolled rendition of the Mar. 10, 2017 order vacating the judgment | Beach Developers: Rule 9.130(a)(5) bars tolling; appeal must be within 30 days of rendition | NDM: The Mar. 10 order is final as to NDM; rule 9.020(i)(1) allows tolling by a timely, authorized rehearing motion | Held: Rule 9.130(a)(5) unambiguously prevents tolling of orders on motions for relief from judgment; NDM’s appeal of Mar. 10 order is untimely and court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court may separately review the Apr. 17, 2017 order denying rehearing after dismissing appeal of underlying order | Beach Developers: Orders denying rehearing of such orders are not separately reviewable | NDM: Timely appealed Apr. 17 order; rehearing was authorized so Apr. 17 order can be reviewed | Held: Rule 9.130(a)(4) bars separate review only when the rehearing motion suspended rendition; because rule 9.130(a)(5) prevented suspension, the Apr. 17 order is reviewable separately |
| Whether a rule 1.540 order can be "final" as to a non‑party bidder for purposes of tolling rules | Beach Developers: Applicability of rule 9.130(a)(5) turns on the procedural vehicle, not finality to third parties | NDM: Finality to NDM should permit tolling under rule 9.020(i) | Held: The procedural category controls; orders on rule 1.540 motions are governed by rule 9.130(a)(5) regardless of their practical finality to non‑parties |
| Scope of appeal after partial dismissal | Beach Developers: Entire appeal should be dismissed as untimely | NDM: At least the Apr. 17 denial should proceed | Held: Reconsideration partially granted—dismissal of appeal of Mar. 10 order affirmed; dismissal of appeal of Apr. 17 order vacated and NDM ordered to file initial brief limited to challenge of Apr. 17 order |
Key Cases Cited
- Miami‑Dade Water & Sewer Auth. v. Metro. Dade Cty., 469 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA) (definition of finality: end of judicial labor)
- Peltz v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865 (Fla. 3d DCA) (timely filing requirements for appeals)
- Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 166 So. 3d 967 (Fla. 3d DCA) (orders on rehearing generally not separately reviewable)
- Christ v. Christ, 103 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 1st DCA) (limitations on separate review of rehearing orders)
- Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA) (rehearing/appeal jurisdiction principles)
- D. K. D. v. State, 470 So. 2d 1387 (Fla.) (committee notes are not binding authority)