DAVID A. MCKIBBIN, ESQUIRE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF WILFRED H. HIGBIE, DECEASED, AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
MICHAEL E. FUJAREK AND MARILYN FUJAREK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order allowing plaintiffs to amend a notice of voluntary dismissal over a year after its filing. The court held that Rule 1.540(a), which permits correction of clerical mistakes and errors of oversight, cannot be used to correct substantive errors of counsel such as inadvertently including 'with prejudice' language.
Rule 1.540(a) cannot be used to correct substantive errors of counsel. The rule is limited to correcting technical, clerical errors or accidental slips and omissions. When a trial court's order under the rule modifies the substance of the record rather than merely correcting a technical error, the court acts in excess of its authority under the rule.
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a) permits correction of clerical mistakes and errors from oversight or omission in the record, but not substantive errors of counse…
[2] A trial court exceeds its authority under Rule 1.540(a) when it allows an amendment that changes the substantive effect of a prior order or record entry.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Rule limits relief to those seeking to correct errors or misprisions that result from an accidental slip or omission. When a trial court's order under the Rule goes beyond the correction of a technical error and actually modifies the substance of a record the court has acted in excess of the power conferred upon it by the rule.”
Establishes the key limitation on Rule 1.540(a): it applies only to technical/clerical errors, not substantive modifications
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiffs filed two suits against defendants on the same cause of action in Broward and Dade County courts. In the Broward County action, plaintiffs …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, Or Excusable Neglect cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In our discussion on this petition for writ of common law certiorari the parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court. The defendants seek our writ of certiorari to quash an order of the trial court which allowed the plaintiffs to file an amended notice of voluntary dismissal more than one year after the entry of the original notice of dismissal.
We find that the court departed from the essential requirements of law and quash the order. The plaintiffs commenced two suits on the same cause of action against the defendants for personal injuries, one in Bro-ward County Circuit Court and one in Dade County Circuit Court.
Pursuant to an alleged agreement with opposing counsel the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the Broward County action; however, they contend the notice inadvertently contained the words with prejudice. Fifteen months later the defendants filed motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, for directed verdict, and for leave to add the affirmative defense of res judicata, in the Dade County action. Thereupon, pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(a), the plaintiffs sought, and were granted, leave to amend their notice of dismissal in the Broward County action to exclude the words “with prejudice”, thereby avoiding the res judica-ta effect of the dismissal in the Broward County action. The issue is whether Rule 1.540(a) can be employed to correct substantive errors of counsel.
We hold that it cannot.
We initially reject defendants’ (petitioners’) argument that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction because the original dismissal divested the court of jurisdiction. Although there is no doubt that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 1.420(a), Fla.R.Civ.P., divests the court of jurisdiction to entertain a later request for reinstatement of a cause of action, Sun First National Bank of Delray Beach v. Green Crane & Concrete Services, 371 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Randall-Eastern Ambulance Services v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla.1978); Rich Motors, Inc. v. Loyd Cole Produce Express, Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971), Rule 1.540(a) allows the court to correct clerical mistakes, and errors from oversight or omission, in any part of the record at any time. The Rule provides:
Rule 1.540. Relief from Judgment, Decrees or Orders
(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal is docketed in the appellate court and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.
Thus, we are not concerned with the court’s jurisdiction, but rather the extent to which this Rule may be applied.
The Rule limits relief to those seeking to correct errors or misprisions that result from an accidental slip or omission. When a trial court’s order under the Rule goes beyond the correction of a technical error and actually modifies the substance of a record the court has acted in excess of the power conferred upon it by the rule. Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.1979); De Baun v. Michael, 333 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976). By allowing the amended notice of voluntary dismissal to eliminate the words “with prejudice” the court obviously changed the substantive effect of the dismissal from one with finality to one without.
We find this to be a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
Furthermore, the record does not indicate that the original notice of dismissal was the product of a technical, clerical error or omission. If anything, it would seem to have been the product of “mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect” which may be remedied by employment of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b).
Accordingly, certiorari is granted and the trial court’s order allowing an amended notice of dismissal is quashed.
MOORE, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Shampaine Indus., Inc. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 411 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…pellate court and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court. Thus, we are not concerned with the court’s jurisdiction, but rather the extent to which this Rule may be applied. McKibbin v. Fujarek, 385 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).2 Under this view a trial court does have jurisdiction to grant relief assuming the existence of circumstances contemplated by the provisions of the rule. Despite this rather clear cut statement on the jurisdictional issue…
-
Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…y Mutual Ins. Co. of Shelby, Ohio v. Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1, 3-4 (Fla.1970); Barrios v. Draper, 423 So. 2d 1002, 1003 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Pompano Atlantis Condominium Ass’n v. Merlino, 415 So. 2d 153, 154 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see McKibbin v. Fujarek, 385 So. 2d 724, 725 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Finally, the trial court, sua sponte, vacated the final judgment herein on the merits based on certain perceived errors of law and did not rely on any of the narrow grounds for vacating a final judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P.…
-
Cap. Bank v. Needle, 596 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…has provided us legal authority involving facts similar to those involved herein. As a general rule, a voluntary dismissal with prejudice operates as an adjudication on the merits, barring a subsequent action on the same claim. McKibbin v. Fujarek, 385 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Drady v. Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 193 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), cert. denied, 210 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1968); Lomelo v. American Oil Co., 256 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Similarly, case law seems to suggest that…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Serv., Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1978)
- Town OF Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1979)
- SUN First Nat'l Bank OF Delray Beach v. Green Crane & Concrete Servs., Inc., 371 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Shands & Baker, Inc. v. Holmes Co., Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Rich Motors, Inc. v. Loyd Cole Produce Express, Inc., 244 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- De Baun v. Michael, 333 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)