Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). · Go Syfert
Search
Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: New Day Miami, LLC v. Beach Developers, LLC (fladistctapp, 2017-08-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) New Day Miami, LLC v. Beach Developers, LLC
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 166 So.3d 967, 968 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Christ v. Christ, 103 So.3d 1056, 1057 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So.2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Robert A. Stok, P.A. v. Cabrera
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So.2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Forrest
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
Richardson, 611 So.2d at 1255 ; Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So.2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); APPEAL DISMISSED.
discussed Cited "see" Ricardo v. Wells Fargo
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
App. P. 9.130(a)(4), and Grant v. Jones, 933 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)); accord Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So. 2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (dismissing appeal of order denying rehearing because it was “plainly a non-final order which is not appealable under Fla. R.
discussed Cited "see" Ricardo v. Wells Fargo Bank National Ass'n
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: accord · confidence high
App. P. 9.130(a)(4), and Grant v. Jones, 933 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)); accord Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So.2d 1092, 1092-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (dismissing appeal of order denying re-' hearing because it was “plainly a non-final order which is not appealable under Fla. R.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lara's Cabling Corp. v. Financial Exchange Network
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence low
P. 9.130(a)(5); Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986), review denied, 494 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1986); see also Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shell v. Foulkes
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Khem-Troll Inc. v. Edelman, 351 So.2d 1040 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (order disposing of motion for relief under rule 1.540(b) is final order "subject to plenary review”); see also Bastida v. Vitaver, 590 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (same); Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping Inc., 486 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1153 (Fla.1986) (same). 9 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Susana Ines BASTIDA, Appellant,
v.
Pablo Raul VITAVER, Appellee.
91-2157.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Dec 24, 1991.
590 So. 2d 1092
Hubbart, Nesbitt and Cope.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published

Lazara L. Balseiro, Miami, for appellant.

Harvey D. Rogers, Miami, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and COPE, JJ.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

PER CURIAM.

The appellant Susana Ines Bastida appeals from an order of the circuit court which denies appellant's motion for rehearing and clarification of an order dismissing without prejudice her motion to vacate a final judgment filed pursuant to Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.540. The appellee Pablo Raul Vitaver moves to dismiss this appeal. At the oral argument on this motion, appellant asserted that she sought solely to appeal the above order on rehearing and did not seek review of the order dismissing without prejudice her 1.540 motion to vacate. We grant the motion to dismiss upon a holding that the order sought to be reviewed is plainly a non-final order which is[*1093] not appealable under Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a), as authorized by Article V, Section 4(b)(1) of the Florida Constitution.

We note, however, that appellant has filed an amended motion to vacate under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, as authorized by the above order of dismissal without prejudice, which amended motion is presently pending in the trial court. Any order finally disposing of this amended motion would be appealable as a final order under the method prescribed by Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(5), although the time for taking such an appeal would not be stayed by a motion for rehearing filed thereafter. Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 494 So.2d 1153 (Fla. 1986). Moreover, the appellant on such an appeal would be permitted to assert as error the denial of her motion for rehearing and clarification from which she abortively seeks review in the instant appeal.

Appeal dismissed.