Full Opinion

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT DAVID STERN, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D20-1189 ) U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as trustee for ) LSF9 Master Participation Trust; ANA ) FULLER; and SANDOVAL COMMUNITY ) ASSOCIATION, INC., ) ) Appellees. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed April 30, 2021. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County; Joseph C. Fuller, Jr., Judge. David Stern, pro se. Jonathan L. Blackmore of Phelan Hallinan Diamond & Jones, PLLC, Ft. Lauderdale; and Shaib Y. Rios of Brock & Scott, PLLC, Ft. Lauderdale for Appellee U.S. Bank. No appearance for remaining Appellees. SILBERMAN, Judge. We dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction because David Stern failed to file a timely notice of appeal directed to the final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as trustee. An appellant invokes the court's jurisdiction by filing a notice of appeal within thirty days of rendition of the challenged order. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(b). A failure to timely file the notice "deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction." Griffin v. Sistuenck, 816 So. 2d 600, 601 (Fla. 2002). Stern filed his notice of appeal some 120 days after the final judgment was rendered. Although a timely and authorized motion for rehearing tolls rendition of a final order, see Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(1)(B), (2)(A), Stern did not file a motion for rehearing directed to the final judgment. Thus, his notice of appeal was untimely. If Stern had timely appealed the final judgment, he would have been able to challenge the trial court's prior order granting summary judgment because "an appeal of a final order 'calls up for review all necessary interlocutory steps leading to that final order.' " Thomas v. Hosp. Bd. of Dirs. of Lee Cnty., 41 So. 3d 246, 255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (quoting Saul v. Basse, 399 So. 2d 130, 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)). We point out that Stern filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's earlier order granting U.S. Bank's motion for summary judgment. But the motion to reconsider directed to the nonfinal order granting summary judgment did not toll rendition of the final judgment. A motion for reconsideration is properly directed to a nonfinal order, not a final order. See Seigler v. Bell, 148 So. 3d 473, 478 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Thus, a motion for reconsideration is not listed as an order that tolls rendition of a final order. See Fla. R App. P. 9.020(h)(1). Because Stern failed to file a timely notice of appeal directed to the final judgment of foreclosure, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Dismissed. LUCAS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur. -2-