Motion for reconsideration of a court decision is so often thought as a wishful event. Certain criteria may just allow that step to be taken to ask a court to reconsider its decision. The distinction is not to ask for a new hearing when all you are seeking is for the court to consider its decision and present information that may sway the court. Asking for a new hearing opens a set of requirements that many litigants are not qualified to do so. There are factors to consider seeking a rehearing. This note is about seeking the court’s reconsideration.
For a motion for reconsideration, the litigant should keep in mind that it can raise this even regarding a nonfinal order. But what is crucial is that it must be done prior to entry of final judgment. What is usually overlooked is that seeking the court to reconsider its decision does not toll the time to file the required notice of appeal. That is definitely something to consider and keep in mind.
It is important to clearly state right up front that the filing is not a request for a rehearing. To maintain clarity the motion should be clear about the intent for reconsideration. The litigant must have a basis for seeking such reconsideration, i.e., new evidence, for instance.
There is also the question of appeal potential if a motion for reconsideration was denied. This is not guaranteed. In Florida, the Second District has decided that denials for reconsideration are not reviewed. See Hunter v. Dennies Contracting Co., Inc., 693 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1997). The court in Monte Campbell Crane, out of the Fourth District in Florida, opined that denied motions for reconsideration could be reviewed.
What stands out about motions for reconsideration, as dealt by the appellate courts in Florida, since 1976 out of the Third District, is that there appears to be a willingness among districts to reverse the denial when the movant presents changed circumstances and brought to the court’s attention discrepancies. In this regard, it is very likely that a denial for reconsideration will be overturned by the appellate court.
The litigant must be sure what will be presented before the court before seeking a reconsideration. Timing of the motion and what can be filed thereafter is another consideration. In Florida, there appears some like to at least be able to address court discrepancies.
 Monte Campbell Crane Co., Inc. v. Hancock, 510 So. 2d 1104, 1105 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1987).
 Associated Med. Insts., Inc. v. Imperatori, 338 So. 2d 74, 75 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1976).
Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. v. Patterson, 633 So. 2d 539, 539 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 1994); City of Hollywood v. Cordasco, 575 So. 2d 301, 302 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1991); Arnold v. Massebeau, 493 So. 2d 91, 92 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1986);