Seigler v. Bell
148 So. 3d 473
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Mother consented to temporary custody of her son to Grandmother (consent executed 1999; formal temporary custody order entered 2001).
- Mother later sought visitation (2010); Grandmother obtained supervised visitation which broke down after a few sessions. Relationships deteriorated and Mother moved to revoke Grandmother’s temporary custody (Nov. 2010).
- A general magistrate recommended restoring custody to Mother but with a 64-week incremental reunification and post-restoration liberal contact for Grandmother; magistrate found Mother fit but noted the 13-year-old child was resistant.
- Trial court granted Mother’s exceptions, removed the reunification period and post-restoration visitation, and entered an amended order transferring immediate full custody to Mother.
- Grandmother filed a "Motion for Rehearing or Reconsideration;" the trial court vacated an earlier denial, conducted an in-camera interview of the child, and ultimately granted Grandmother’s motion for reconsideration to allow further evidence before changing custody.
- Mother petitioned this court for certiorari and mandamus to reinstate the trial court’s prior order and to bar reconsideration; the appellate court dismissed certiorari for lack of jurisdiction and denied mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mother) | Defendant's Argument (Grandmother) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court s order granting rehearing/reconsideration departed from essential requirements of law | Grandmother s motion was untimely and the trial court lost jurisdiction; granting it was a legal error | The motion was timely (rule amendment should apply retroactively) or, alternatively, the court properly considered public-policy/best-interest evidence | Dismissed certiorari: no jurisdiction because the order was a nonfinal interlocutory order and thus not a departure from essential requirements of law |
| Whether the January 11, 2013 order adopting/modifying the magistrate s report was a final, appealable judgment | Mother treated it as final and subject to rule 1.530 rehearing time limits | Grandmother contended she could seek reconsideration of a nonfinal order | The court held the trial court s order merely modified the magistrate s report and was not a final judgment; motions were properly treated as reconsideration of an interlocutory order |
| Whether Grandmother s motion was timely under the rules | Mother: motion was untimely under existing rule 1.530 (10-day limit) | Grandmother: rule 1.530 amendment (15 days) should apply or motion for reconsideration can be filed any time before final judgment | Motion was properly characterized as reconsideration; such motions may be filed any time before final judgment, so timeliness/jurisdiction was proper |
| Whether mandamus relief was appropriate to compel reinstatement of the prior order and adjudication of Mother s revocation motion | Mother: trial court abused discretion and mandamus is needed to enforce her right to adjudication | Grandmother: trial court acted within its authority to consider best-interest evidence and to vacate interlocutory rulings | Mandamus denied: no clear, indisputable ministerial duty to compel because the trial court had authority to reconsider interlocutory orders and to allow additional evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Allan & Conrad, Inc. v. Univ. of Cent. Fla., 961 So.2d 1083 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (three-part certiorari standard: departure, material injury, lack of adequate remedy)
- MaHin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (certiorari standards regarding departures from essential requirements of law)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass'n, 104 So.3d 344 (Fla. 2012) (irreparable harm is jurisdictional prerequisite for certiorari review)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999) (discussing irreparable harm and appellate jurisdiction)
- Silvestrone v. Edell, 721 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 1998) (trial court s inherent authority to reconsider interlocutory orders prior to final judgment)
- Lackner v. Cent. Fla. Invests., Inc., 14 So.3d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009) (magistrate reports are not final judgments; trial court must adopt/modifiy to enter binding order)
- Norris v. Norris, 28 So.3d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (approving magistrate reports does not necessarily create an appealable final order)