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?

Fairness to good men in divorce

Loving willing fathers and mothers are being torn away from there child’s life on hear-say evidence & false allegations of domestic violence & other criminal offences. there lives are destroyed by the state & there ex-partner & solicitors they are forced into suicide because they know that the government don’t support then and they may never see there children again and the stress of this drives them too this.

WE THE PEOPLE DEMAND REFORM ~> 50/50 Shared ParentingProject Fatherhood FL 4- 2015

DEMAND REFORM ~> 50/50 Shared Parenting

cropped-fr-google-community-pic-20151.pngSource: Fairness to good men in divorce

www.facebook.com/ParentalAlienationMiamiFlorida
http://www.facebook.com/ParentalAlienationMiamiFlorida

abb70-unfairjusticeThe plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to equal custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being violated by family courts across the nation.

Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades. Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and acts of Congress “to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights.”

In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in custody matters.

According to the suits, state practices appear to be “willful, reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers” with a “systematic pattern of obstructing, hindering, and/or otherwise thwarting the rightful and lawful conclusion of due process” of non-custodial parents in child custody proceedings.

In particular, fathers protest the widespread practice of almost automatically granting sole custody to mothers in divorce disputes.

The 28-plus class action suits are identical, as any future suits will be. The ultimate goal is for every state and U.S. possession to be represented in one large consolidated action. Indeed, Torm L. Howse — president of the Indiana Civil Rights Council and coordinator of the suits — says that paperwork is under way for submission to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, a legal body which has the authority to transfer such multiple civil cases to a single district court.

If this happens, every single non-custodial parent in America will be represented by the class action suit, which is nothing more than a lawsuit brought by one person or a small group on behalf of an entire class who shares a grievance.

What specific relief is being sought?

The sweeping legal goals are spelled out in a press release. The main  of all current non-custodial parents against whom no allegations of abuse or neglect have been proven and who have an ongoing relationship with the child.

The establishment of equal custody embraces several other reliefs.

For example, the “prohibition of custodial move-aways of minor children [more than 60 miles] from their original physical residences with natural parents.” Also, the “abolishment of forced/court-ordered child support in most cases.” Support of the child would be borne by each parent during their own parenting time.

The Plaintiffs argue for restoration of equal custody not merely for the sake of non-custodial parents but also for children’s welfare. The press release cites a much-touted study entitled “Child Adjustment in Joint-Custody Versus Sole-Custody Arrangements,” which was published in the APA’s Journal of Family Psychology. The study concluded, “Children in joint physical or legal custody were better adjusted than children in sole-custody settings, but no different from those in intact families.”

YOUTUBE.COM
 

At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The defendants are the individual states.

Across U.S., Non-Custodial Parents Sue | Fox News

Fox News  ~  At least 28 federal class action suits in 28 states have been filed in the last two weeks on behalf of non-custodial parents (NCPs). The defendants are the individual states. The plaintiffs claim to represent an estimated 25 million non-custodial parents — primarily fathers — whose right to equal custody of minor children in situations of dispute is allegedly being violated by family courts across the nation. Family law is traditionally a state matter, but the federal government has assumed greater control in the area over the last few decades. Thus, the plaintiffs are appealing to the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court precedent and acts of Congress “to vindicate and restore their various inalienable rights.” In short, federal law is being asked to trump state practice in custody matters. According to the suits, state practices appear to be “willful, reckless, and/or negligent fraud, deceit, collusion, and/or abuse of powers” with…Read More

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue reading Fairness to good men in divorce