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?

Fatherless Day Rallies In Every State and Across The Globe!!

FRM USA - 2015Our current system of resolving child custody disputes rarely considers either children’s needs from children’s own perspective, or current research on child custody outcomes.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Civil Rights in Family Law Florida

View original post 4,025 more words

Sole custody should not be the norm following divorce or separation.

Reining in Our Nation’s Family Courts

familycourt25242b2Small-government conservatives have largely overlooked the fact that no branch of government other than the tax authorities intrudes more forcefully and intimately into the lives of Americans than do our nation’s family courts. And that where there is forceful intrusion, there is political opportunity — and danger for either party, if it allows the other to grab and run with the issue of family-court reform.dysfunctional-family-courts-20151

cropped-votefamily-1-bannerThese courts routinely redistribute enormous amounts of wealth, destroy small businesses, mandate when and where parents can see their own children, order people to vacate their homes simply on the request of their former spouse, order people to sell their homes (sometimes unavoidably in an asset division, but often not), and even dictate whether they can change their careers by holding them to a demanding child-support order that could not be obeyed during a temporary decrease in income. family court insanity - 2016

Continue reading Sole custody should not be the norm following divorce or separation.

Absent parents are three times more likely to die early

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Father and son separating from mother and daughterTHE heartbreak of family separation is sending absent parents to an early grave, figures show.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) data shows that parents who leave their children are almost three times more likely to die early. 

It was unearthed by Sunday Express staff who compared the number of Child Support Agency (CSA) cases closed after “nonresident” parents died with cases closed due to the death of the “parent with care”. 

The figures show that since June 2003, 8,515 non-resident parents have died compared to 3,090 residents.

Right of First Refusal - 2015
causes.com/childrensrights

According to the information released under the Freedom of Information Act, 94.8 per cent of CSA cases involved a male nonresident parent.Despite a specific request, no causes of death were given. 

Information on mental illness among non-resident parents was also unavailable.

Matt O’Connor, founder of Fathers 4 Justice, described the figures as “alarming”. 

He said: “The department has a responsibility to conduct some meaningful research to understand what is actually behind these figures.YouTube Channel Art - 2015olympic-chains-ad

Continue reading Absent parents are three times more likely to die early