Appeals
— Timeliness — Amended final judgment had no impact on finality of original
final judgment where there was no material change between the original judgment
and the amended judgment — Court is without jurisdiction to consider appeal
where notice of appeal was filed more that thirty days after rendition of
original final judgment

GOLD KING APARTMENTS, LLC, Appellant, vs. PAUL DUMORNAY, et
al., Appellees. 3rd District. Case No. 3D14-2334. L.T. Case No. 14-3278.
Opinion filed March 2, 2016. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Gill S. Freeman, Judge. Counsel: Pomeranz & Associates, P.A., and
Mark L. Pomeranz (Hallandale), for appellant. Legal Services of Greater Miami,
Inc., and Evian L. White and Jeffrey M. Hearne; Charles F. Elsesser, Jr. and
Meena Jagannath; Hernandez Lee Martinez, LLC and Eric Hernandez, for appellees.

(Before WELLS, LAGOA, and SCALES, JJ.)

(LAGOA, Judge.) We dismiss the instant appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. On July 10, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment for
sanctions against the appellant, Gold King Apartments, LLC (“Gold King”), and
its counsel, Pomeranz & Associates, P.A. Gold King did not appeal from the
final judgment. Instead, on August 15, 2014, Gold King filed a motion in the
trial court requesting that the trial court re-enter judgment. The trial court
granted Gold King’s motion, and on September 18, 2014, entered an amended final
judgment. The amended final judgment simply re-stated the amount of sanctions
as set forth in the final judgment, and made no changes from the final
judgment. Gold King filed a notice of appeal from the amended final judgment on
September 29, 2014.

It is established that where there is no material change
between an original final judgment and an amended final judgment, there is no
impact on the finality of the original final judgment for purposes of appeal. See
Rice v. Freeman, 939 So. 2d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); see also Churchville
v. Ocean Grove R.V. Sales, Inc., 876 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
(“An amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial,
insubstantial way does not restart the clock to file an appeal.”); Wetherington
v. Minch, 637 So. 2d 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Because Gold King filed its
notice of appeal more than thirty days after the rendition of the original
final judgment, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See
Rice, 939 So. 2d at 1145.

Accordingly, we dismiss this untimely-filed appeal for lack
of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

* *
*