Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?

Ask any civil trial lawyer in Florida how many days one has to move for rehearing of an order simply granting a motion for summary judgment, and the odds are good the lawyer will respond, “Ten days.” Pursue the matter further with the lawyer, and ask where this 10-day period is set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and the lawyer will invariably point to Rule 1.530, which by its title governs motions for new trial and rehearing.

Rule 1.530, however, provides that a motion for rehearing must be served no later than 10 days after “the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.”1 An order simply granting a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment; rather, it is a nonfinal order.2 So, too, are myriad other orders entered by a trial court before final judgment. Attorneys in Florida nevertheless regularly file “motions for rehearing” directed to such nonfinal orders. Often they believe they must do so within 10 days. Sometimes they also believe that such a motion tolls the time to seek appellate review of the nonfinal order.

Motions for rehearing of nonfinal orders are not authorized by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.3 Noting that motions for rehearing are exclusively governed by Rule 1.530, the Florida Supreme Court has observed that “[u]nless the filing of a motion for rehearing to an interlocutory order is authorized by a rule of court promulgated by the rule-making authority, then its filing is improper.”4 Indeed, it is not unheard of for an attorney to file a motion for “rehearing” of a nonfinal order and subsequently be confronted with a response from the other side echoing the court’s language and declaring that such motions are unauthorized and improper.

Yet while the rules of civil procedure themselves do not authorize motions for rehearing directed to nonfinal orders, a trial court does have the inherent authority to reconsider and alter or retract such orders prior to the entry of final judgment.5 Rather than constituting a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530, a motion directed to a nonfinal order is actually a “motion for reconsideration” based upon this inherent and discretionary authority of the trial court.6 Despite this distinct and well-established basis for reconsideration of interlocutory orders, there still exists confusion among many practitioners about the differences between reconsideration and rehearing.

Much of the confusion stems from the fact that parties and the courts frequently use the terms interchangeably, at least in the context of motions directed at nonfinal orders. This is perhaps understandable given the lack of any rule-based authority for reconsideration of nonfinal orders; the articulation of the trial court’s inherent authority has of necessity come through the development of the common law. An attorney will, therefore, only be aware of the basis for reconsideration — as well as its effect on any subsequent appeal — from the case law.

Common Law Origin of Motions for Reconsideration

Continue reading Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?

Tampa Tribune Article – Eliminate Legal Representation in Family Courts

Sen. Jeremy Ring points out what is MISSING from alimony legislation including attorney fee caps, citing this as the single biggest issue in Family Law, and, without addressing this issue, he and many others cannot support similar proposed Family Law legislation. Curious then, that the Florida Bar FLS leadership now SUPPORTS destructive anti-woman, anti-child, anti-stay-at-home mother, anti-family bills like Sen. Kelli Stargel‘s and Rep. Colleen Burton’s Family Law/Alimony Reform Legislation. Clearly, Florida needs an independent Task Force created to properly study Family Law/Alimony Reform legislation to ensure that it is properly vetted, based on economic FACTS, and not harmful to Florida’s vulnerable mothers, women and children for whom attorneys fees are typically out of reach. In 2016, the bills again support wealthy breadwinners, disregard the issue of attorney fees, all while creating a wealth of work for Florida attorneys.

demand-family-court-reform-florida-2015Senate passes bill that helps give divorced parents equal time with their children | Tampa Bay Times  ~~  This article is very bias and discriminating. Perhaps you're not affected Good - 2015The writer cites extreme examples that very rarely happen in family courts to say that 50/50 timesharing may not be good.Lawless America - 2015 Perhaps the writer is a lawyer??dysfunctional-family-courts-2015

TALLAHASSEE — Judges soon may have little choice but to give divorcing parents equal time with their children.florida judges - 2015

The Senate on Tuesday passed a change to divorce law that would require judges to presume that it is best for children to split time equally with both parents and to issue a detailed order if they deviate from that standard.

Under current law, judges are supposed to consider 20 criteria, the child’s best interests and “frequent and continuing contact with both parents” when they write an order. But Sen. Tom Lee, R-Brandon, who sponsored the legislation (SB 250), says the child’s well-being is an end goal and that to accomplish that, it’s in the best interests of kids to split time evenly with both parents whenever possible.We need a winner - 2015

The majority of senators agreed, passing Lee’s bill on a 23-15 vote. The legislation hasn’t been supported by the House yet, but other changes to divorce law remain under consideration.

“As we look at other child welfare polices that we enact, we always start with the assumption that if it’s in the best interest of the child, we want both parents involved and that we want both parents to take responsibility,” Sen. Don Gaetz, R-Niceville, said.

Some research indicates children are likely to be better adjusted when parents have joint custody.

“ALL RESEARCH”

INDICATES CHILDREN ARE BETTER ADJUSTED WHEN PARENTS HAVE EQUAL JOINT CUSTODY (LEGAL AND PHYSICAL) !!!!

In 2002, Robert Bauserman, then a psychologist at the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, compiled studies that compared children growing up in joint custody arrangements to those living with one parent.

In general, Bauserman found, children who spent some time with each parent had fewer behavioral problems, higher self-esteem and did better in school.

Parents, on the other hand, tend to be more satisfied if they don’t have to split time with their children with an ex-spouse, according to Bauserman.

BULLSHIT!!! NOT TRUE!!!!!!

But opponents to the timesharing bill, including Sen. Jeff Clemens, D-Lake Worth, say there isn’t sufficient data to indicate that splitting time evenly between both parents is the ideal place to draw the line. They argue doing so could simply lead to backlogs in the courts as parents unhappy with their custody agreements ask judges to reconsider their timesharing.

Critics further raise concerns that creating a 50/50 starting point for court orders could prejudice judges and that it meddles too much with judicial discretion.

MORE BULLSHIT!!!!  CREATING 50/50 PRESUMPTION WILL ELIMINATE JUDICIAL PREJUDICE AND STOP ABSOLUTE JUDICIAL DISCRETION WHICH IS WHAT IS HARMING FAMILIES NOW!!!!

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue reading Tampa Tribune Article – Eliminate Legal Representation in Family Courts