#FLORIDA MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION SAMPLE TRIAL#

Judge May, writing for the majority, wrote that because “dissolution of marriage cases are unlike other civil litigation” and because “the rules do not require the filing of a motion ,” “here is no need to call the matter to the attention of the trial court by way of a motion for rehearing” to preserve the issue for appellate review. In a fractured 7-5 en banc opinion, the Fourth District receded from Farghali. 4th DCA 2016) (“ party is not entitled to complain that a judgment in a marital and family law case fails to contain sufficient findings unless that party raised the omission before the trial court in a motion for rehearing.”). In support, she cited to a Fourth District opinion published just two years earlier. The former wife responded that the former husband waived this issue by not moving for rehearing at the trial court. In Fox, the former husband appealed the trial court’s award to the former wife of permanent periodic alimony based on the former couple’s gross monthly income, arguing the trial court did not make the express, statutorily-required findings. 4th DCA 2018), the court sat en banc to resolve its own intradistrict conflict.

In fact, it was the subject of robust debate at the Fourth District a short four years ago. Before last week’s rule change, there was a deep district split in our state on this issue.

This was an interesting choice of words by the court: “to clarify,” the court said, that a motion for rehearing is “required.”Īs to family-law matters, clarification was certainly needed. In the issuing opinion, the court wrote: “We have determined that amendments to these rules are necessary to clarify that filing a motion for rehearing is required to preserve an objection to insufficient trial court findings in a final judgment order.” In re: Amends. And the public has 75 days to submit comments to the court. The changes took effect immediately upon the court’s issuing the opinion. On August 25, 2022, on its own motion, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530 now to require a motion for rehearing before challenging on appeal “the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings in the final judgment.” Thus, now, when a circuit court enters a final judgment that is required to include specific findings, trial counsel’s failure to move for rehearing will be fatal to appellate review.

But what about when a party challenges on appeal the sufficiency of the court’s findings contained in a final order? Is a motion for rehearing required to preserve the issue for appellate review? The answer’s now “yes.” There’s really no question that when an order is interlocutory, a party challenging the sufficiency of the court’s findings contained in that order should move for reconsideration. Likewise, rule 1.610(c) requires the judge to expressly “specify the reasons” for issuing an injunction. For instance, in marriage-dissolution proceedings, circuit courts are statutorily required to make certain factual findings and, in the final judgment, “include specific written findings of fact” as to four enumerated categories of assets, nonassets, liabilities, and other things. Whether by statute or by rule, certain orders issued by a circuit court must contain specific factual findings. Trial counsel should take note: You are about to file a lot more motions for rehearing pre-appeal. On August 25, 2022, on its own motion, the Florida Supreme Court amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 and Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.530 now to require a motion for rehearing before challenging on appeal “the sufficiency of a trial court’s findings in the final judgment.” While at first glance this seems to be a subtle change to the rules-something that feels like a mere formality-it’s more than that.

Florida motion for reconsideration sample