The Moore Law Firm, P.A. v. Fort Walton Beach Area Bridge Authority, Okaloosa County, Florida

FIRST D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2024-2215
_____________________________
T HE M OORE LAW FIRM, P.A.,
Appellant,
v.
FORT W ALTON B EACH A REA
B RIDGE A UTHORITY and
OKALOOSA C OUNTY ,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court of Okaloosa County.
John T. Brown, Judge.
April 1, 2026
P ER C URIAM.
The Moore Law Firm, P.A. (the Firm) appeals from the trial
court’s 	orders: 	(1) 	granting 	a 	motion 	for 	post-judgment
intervention and relief from judgment (rendered on May 25, 2017);
and (2) granting final summary judgment for Okaloosa County
(rendered on February 12, 2024). We affirm as to the 2024 order.
But we dismiss the appeal from the 2017 order.
The 2017 order stemmed from a final judgment entered on
October 15, 1999, after the Firm obtained a default against the
Fort 	Walton 	Area 	Bridge 	Authority, 	a 	special 	district 	of 	the
County. The lawsuit involved attorney’s fees billed by the Firm

2
from 1991 to 1993. After the Firm sought to enforce the 1999
judgment, the County moved to intervene in the action post-
judgment and for relief from the final judgment. On May 25, 2017,
the trial court granted the County’s motion to intervene and
granted relief from the final judgment. Seventy days later, the
Firm filed a notice of appeal from that order. See 1D2017-3221, The
Moore Law Firm, P.A. v. Fort Walton Beach Area, Bridge Auth.
(Aug. 10, 2017). The appeal was dismissed after the Firm failed to
pay the filing fee. Id. (Fla. 1st DCA Oct. 3, 2017). But then, seven
years later, on August 29, 2024, the Firm filed a second notice of
appeal purporting to appeal the 2017 order. That is the notice at
issue here. This court ordered the parties to show cause why this
appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed.
“Courts 	are 	bound 	to 	take 	notice 	of 	the 	limits 	of 	their
authority, and if want of jurisdiction appears at any stage of the
proceeding, original or appellate, the court should notice the defect
and enter an appropriate order.” W. 132 Feet v. City of Orlando, 86
So. 197, 198–99 (Fla. 1920). To this end, an appellate court must
examine its jurisdiction even if the issue is not raised by the
parties as was the case here. See Mapoles v. Wilson, 122 So. 2d 249,
251 (Fla. 1st DCA 1960) (“Although the question of this court’s
jurisdiction was not raised by the parties, it is a matter of primary
concern to which we must address ourselves sua sponte when any
doubt exists.”); cf. Polk Cnty. v. Sofka, 702 So. 2d 1243, 1245 (Fla.
1997) (describing that the parties’ agreement that the court has
jurisdiction over an appeal “has no bearing on whether, in fact,
such jurisdiction existed”).
Both parties characterize the trial court’s 2017 order granting
relief from the judgment as a non-final order when it is in fact a
post-decretal final order. That distinction is fundamental to this
court’s jurisdiction to review the order. A post-decretal final order
is a final order, separately appealable under Article V, section
4(b)(1) 	of 	the 	Florida 	Constitution. 	The 	supreme 	court 	has
described this type of final order as “an order after judgment [that]
is dispositive of any question” and “[t]o the extent that it completes
the judicial labor on that portion of the cause after judgment, it
becomes final as to that portion and should be treated as a final
judgment.” Clearwater Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Sampson, 336 So.
2d 78, 79 (Fla. 1976). One example of a post-decretal final order is

3
an order ruling on a motion for relief from judgment such as the
2017 order at issue in this appeal. See Wells v. Wells, 392 So. 3d
235, 238 (Fla. 1st DCA 2024) (explaining that an order denying a
motion for relief from judgment is a post-decretal final order,
independently appealable under the Florida Constitution).
An order entered on a motion for relief from judgment is also
a specified final order reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 	9.130(a)(5). 	See 	Fla. 	R. 	App. 	P. 	9.130, 	2008 	cmt.
(“Subdivision 9.130(a)(5) is intended to authorize appeals from
orders 	entered 	on 	motions 	for 	relief 	from 	judgment 	that 	are
specifically contemplated by a specific rule of procedure (e.g., the
current versions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 . . .).”).
The rule requires the “filing [of] a notice with the clerk of the lower
tribunal within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.”
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(b). Unless the notice of appeal is timely filed,
this court lacks jurisdiction to review such an order. See Norm
Burg Const. Corp. v. Jupiter Inlet Corp., 514 So. 2d 1102, 1106 (Fla.
1987) 	(“A 	timely 	filed 	notice 	of 	appeal 	is 	essential 	to 	vest
jurisdiction of an appeal in an appellate court. An appellate court
lacks jurisdiction unless the notice of appeal is filed within the
time and in the manner prescribed by the rules.”); Peltz v. Dist.
Court of Appeal, Third Dist., 605 So. 2d 865, 866 (Fla. 1992) (“The
untimely filing of a notice of appeal precludes the appellate court
from exercising jurisdiction.”).
The notice of appeal in this case was filed seven years late.
Because the Firm’s appeal from the order granting the County’s
motion for relief from judgment is untimely, we dismiss that
portion of the appeal.
DISMISSED in part; A FFIRMED in part.
LEWIS, R OWE , and RAY , JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not 	final 	until 	disposition 	of 	any 	timely 	and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________

4
Bret 	A. 	Moore 	of 	The 	Moore 	Law 	Firm, 	P.A., 	Niceville, 	for
Appellant.
Matthew R. Shaud, Gregory T. Stewart, and Lynn M. Hoshihara
of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee
Okaloosa County.
No 	Appearance 	for 	Appellee 	Fort 	Walton 	Beach 	Area 	Bridge
Authority.