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?

How many broken fathers will it take before “we” reform Family Law?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This “Complaint” has immense practical value as a free information product for those victimized by domestic relations courts around the country. We parents are experiencing an epidemic in state control practices over our private affairs and exploitation of innocent children for profit. This document should be shared everywhere as a personal defense resource. It can be used to better understand the Family Court environment and as a tool for evaluating the performance of costly legal representation. In addition, it may serve as a background piece for seminars and public assemblies given the complex nature of these court processes. If this Complaint can save a parent-child relationship from abuse or demise, it will be well worth the sacrifice made by its author and sponsor. You may contact Mr. Koziol personally for this purpose at (315) 796-4000.Blog Profile - 2016

On a related note, a 45 page opinion was handed down in federal court in a case filed by Leon Koziol on behalf of “parents similarly situated” in “Parent v State” and its consolidated member case “Koziol v Lippman”. Originally filed on February 26, 2009, this challenge to abusive custody and support laws was held up for two years on a court issued ruling which raised the Rooker-Feldman doctrine as a bar to federal court jurisdiction. Younger abstention was also raised, among other obstacles, by the many law firms defending this action.

Although the claims were dismissed, the jurisdiction obstacles were overcome. Unlike countless other challenges around the country, this court took jurisdiction over the state court issues, giving others a precedent for accessing federal court to raise constitutional questions. The adverse components of this ruling are now being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City. A expedited motion for exigent relief will be filed there at the Foley Square courthouse on Friday, June 17, 2011. We will keep you informed as you remain cognizant of the uphill battle we face. To put this in perspective, father’s rights cases feature a 100% failure rate in our nation’s history. Then, in the usual manner, our politicians wonder why we face so much father absence and moral decline in Father’s Day speeches.Broken Fathers - 2015

 See Complaint: (Click Here)

 

 STOP Court's DENIAL of REASONABLE Parent/Child CONTACT Judge Manno-Schurr is my 8 year-old Paternity – Family Court Case presiding Judge. The 5th Judge to preside over my simple case; an unwed…Read More

go-fund-me-1-stand-up-for-zoraya-20151

florida judges - 2015

COPY THE FOLLOWING:  Dear Honorable Chief Judge Bertila Soto:  I am disturbed about the injustice perpetrated on Mr. David inguanzo. I am further disturbed about the anger directed at this innocent man by Circuit Court Judge Valerie Manno-Schurr, captured…Read Moredo-not-re-elect-bad-family-court-judges-2016

Welcome to Leon Koziol.Com

TO:          ALL  PARENTING/CHILD  ADVOCATES

FROM:       PARENTING  RIGHTS  INSTITUTE AND NATIONAL  LEAGUE  OF  FATHERS,  INC.

RE:           PARENTING  RIGHTS  CONVENTION  REPORT LITIGATION  UPDATE

DATE:     JUNE 10, 2011

As promised at our national Parenting Rights Convention held in upstate New York on April 15-17, 2011, a Report has now been completed for review by attendees, supporters and various government agencies. Issued in the form of a formal “Complaint” filed this morning with the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, copies are being furnished to the U.S. Justice Department, United Nations, legislative leaders and various human rights organizations. We expect to complete this process on June 17, 2011 in Washington D.C. (Father’s Day weekend).

A copy of the 25 page “Complaint” is available for viewing at www.leonkoziol.com. Copies are also being sent to our followers. It incorporates the testimony and contributions of those who attended the April convention. However, names and personal details…

View original post 408 more words