Seslow v. Seslow, 625 So. 2d 1248

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The former wife/appellee filed a motion for rehearing, which basically reargued the merits of this case. Fla.R.App.P. 9.330(a). Such motions are inappropriate and fail to comport with Jacobs v. Wainwright, 450 So.2d 200, 201 (Fla.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1062, 105 S.Ct. 545, 83 L.Ed.2d 433 (1984). Had this been the only basis for this motion, it would have been denied. However, in a motion to supplement the motion for rehearing, the appellee advises this court that the parties settled the issue of attorney‘s fees three months prior to the filing of the motion for rehearing and the monies have been paid. As our opinion reversed the case only on the basis of the trial court‘s award of attorney‘s fees, the issue is now moot. Dominion Properties Corp. v. Faruolo, 264 So.2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The motion for rehearing is, therefore, granted. We withdraw our prior opinion of May 12, 1993, and substitute the following opinion for that previously issued.

AFFIRMED.

GUNTHER and FARMER, JJ., and MAY, MELANIE G., Associate Judge, concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Seslow v. Seslow

Court Name: District Court of Appeal of Florida

Date Published: Sep 8, 1993

Citations: 625 So. 2d 1248; 1993 WL 338716; 92-0279, 92-2037

Docket Number: 92-0279, 92-2037

Court Abbreviation: Fla. Dist. Ct. App.