PER CURIAM.

Appellants seek review of an order granting summary judgment in a probate case. Upon review, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction. See Wade v. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 57 So. 3d 869, 870 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (reaffirming that appellate courts have an independent duty “to examine our jurisdiction in every case even

if, as here, the issue was not raised”). The order sought to be reviewed is not a final order. See Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, P.A. v. W. Fla. Reg’l Med. Ctr., 993 So. 2d 1060, 1061 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (dismissing an appeal as premature because the order merely grants a motion for summary judgment and “does not contain sufficient language of finality to unequivocally bring an end to the required judicial labor”); see also Cody v. Cody, 127 So. 3d 753, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that an order construing a will and determining the testator’s intent was not a final order for purposes of appeal because further judicial action was contemplated regarding the legal description of land to be distributed to the beneficiaries). Nor does the order fall within any of the enumerated categories of appealable nonfinal orders under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(3). Even if it were reviewable under rule 9.130, then the appeal would be untimely because it was not filed within thirty days of the order granting summary judgment.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, RAY, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Shiraz A. Hosein of Anchors Smith Grimsley, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellants.

Brian W. Hoffman of Carver, Darden, Koretzky, Tessier, Finn, Blossman & Areaux, LLC, Pensacola, for Appellee.