October 14, 2022

New Amendment to Fla. Rule of Civil Procedure Adds Step in Trial Court to Preserve Error

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

With the Florida Supreme Court's recent amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, litigants statewide now must take an extra step in the trial court to preserve for appeal challenges to defects that appear on the face of final orders and judgments.

Effective Aug. 25, the Florida Supreme Court on its own motion amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, which addresses motions for rehearing. The court's decision, which resolved a split among Florida's district courts of appeal on whether a motion for rehearing is required to maintain certain challenges to a final order or judgment on appeal, has serious consequences for noncompliance: state appellate courts asked to consider these issues as a basis for reversal will likely deem them abandoned in the absence of a timely filed motion for rehearing.

The new amendment targets final orders or judgments that may lack sufficient findings that a trial court is required to make under Florida law. Because errors on the face of a final order or judgment often do not become apparent until the order or judgment is entered, some district courts of appeal have held that a timely filed motion for rehearing is required to alert the trial court of the alleged error and preserve the point for appeal. This approach is rooted in judicial economy. It provides trial courts with the first opportunity to correct errors to which litigants alert them and moots the need for further appellate proceedings if the errors are remedied.

The district courts' disagreement on this issue naturally created uncertainty among litigants in Florida. For example, a litigant's preservation obligation could vary depending on the location of the lower court, creating a trap for unwary litigants that potentially carries a severe penalty: complete abandonment of the issue on appeal.

In amending Rule 1.530, the Florida Supreme Court has eliminated any guesswork by adopting a uniform policy on preservation throughout Florida that favors judicial economy. The amendment attempts to make compliance simple, adding the following new language to Rule 1.530: "To preserve for appeal a challenge to the sufficiency of a trial court's findings in the final judgment, a party must raise that issue in a motion for rehearing under this rule." The court's stated purpose for the amendment is to clarify that filing a motion for rehearing is required to preserve an objection to insufficient trial court findings in a final order or judgment.

The amendment applies to all final orders or judgments entered on or after Aug. 25. Litigants on the receiving end of an adverse final order or judgment that lacks the requisite findings Florida law requires will now proceed at their peril if they do not challenge that defect in a timely filed motion for rehearing. Litigants that fail to comply will likely be forever barred from raising the issue as a basis for reversal in the appellate court.

There are two important caveats to consider.

First, the amendment does not expressly override the fundamental-error exception, which permits a party to raise an issue for the first time on appeal if it constitutes fundamental error. Although parties should never solely rely on fundamental error to argue reversal, future appeals may have to confront the interplay between what the amendment requires and fundamental error.

Second, the new language in Rule 1.530 has no effect on allegedly deficient nonfinal orders that are made immediately reviewable in the appellate court by operation of rule or otherwise. Motions for rehearing that request findings will not affect the deadline to seek timely appellate review of nonfinal orders.

All aspects of the new amendment considered, attorneys litigating in Florida trial courts should now be prepared to take additional time to review a final order or judgment and identify issues that should be considered in a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530. The rule now definitively establishes their last opportunity to raise them.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From Greenberg Traurig

California AG Announces Investigation of Mobile Apps' CCPA Compliance

By Gretchen A. Ramos Greenberg Traurig January 31 , 2023

On Jan. 27, 2023, the California Attorney General announced his office is investigating and sending letters to businesses in the retail, travel, and food industries with popular mobile apps that allegedly are not in compliance with the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) by failing to offer a consumer opt-out mechanism for sales, or honor rights requests submitted via authorized agents.

E2 Law Podcast: Episode 20 | Empire Environmental - Review of New York's Cap-and-Invest Program to Reduce Emissions and Achieve Climate Goals

By Steven C. Russo Greenberg Traurig January 27 , 2023

In this episode of Greenberg Traurig's E2 Podcast, attorneys Steven Russo, Zackary Knaub, and Jane McLaughlin discuss New York State’s cap-and-invest program to limit greenhouse gas emissions and share revenue with New Yorkers from disadvantaged communities to help cover utility bills, transportation costs, and decarbonization.

5 Trends to Watch: 2023 Data Privacy & Cybersecurity

By Gretchen A. Ramos Greenberg Traurig January 26 , 2023

While ransomware attacks have been on the rise since 2020, a recent trend has emerged where threat actors are bypassing ransomware malware and encryption tactics and going straight to data theft.

More From Litigation

U.S. Supreme Court Dismisses as 'Improvidently Granted' Case on Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. January 30 , 2023

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has dismissed the writ of certiorari granted in In re: Grand Jury, No. 21-1397, writing only that it was “improvidently granted.”

This Week in 340B: January 17 - 23, 2023

By Emily Jane Cook McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

This weekly series provides brief summaries to help you stay in the know on how 340B cases are developing across the country.

Your Gang Did What!? No Matter—No Forfeiture of IP

By Kat Lynch McDermott Will & Emery January 26 , 2023

In a unique case blending intellectual property and criminal law, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed that a district court properly exercised jurisdiction over a motorcycle club and upheld the lower court’s finding that the club did not have to forfeit its collective membership marks.

Featured Stories