THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
ELEANOR MARCIA WALKER, APPELLEE
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.
Travelers Indemnity appeals a judgment awarding damages and attorney's fees to Eleanor Walker after the trial court vacated an order enforcing a settlement agreement. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court lost jurisdiction to vacate the settlement order because the motion to vacate was not timely filed within 10 days of the order's recording.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the order because the motion to vacate was not timely served within 10 days after the order's recording. The settlement order was a final judgment, and the trial court could only review it through a timely motion for rehearing.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction over a cause of action when a party fails to file a timely motion for rehearing after the entry of a final judgment.
[2] A motion for rehearing in a non-jury action must be served no later than 10 days after the entry of judgment, which is deemed to be the date the judgment is recorded.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 test of a final judgment is whether the judicial labor is at an end”
Establishes the legal standard for determining whether an order constitutes a final judgment subject to appellate review and the 10-day motion for rehearing deadline
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring litigation over a collision claim, the parties reached a settlement but disputed its terms. Travelers filed a motion to enforce the settlement,…
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 Timeliness Of Post-Judgment Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
Travelers Indemnity appeals from an adverse judgment for damages and attorney’s fees in an action on a collision claim. We reverse the judgment because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it.
During the course of the proceedings below, the parties purportedly reached a settlement. A dispute arose, however, concerning its terms, and Travelers thereupon filed and served a “motion to enforce settlement” in accordance with what it contended had been agreed to. After hearing, the trial court made the following ruling in an “Order Enforcing Settlement” which was filed on March 5 and recorded on March 7, 1980:
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard upon Defendant’s Motion to Enforce Settlement and the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is,
ORDERED that said Motion be and the same is hereby granted and it is further ORDERED that ELEANOR MARCIA WALKER shall deliver to the TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY a properly executed title free of liens, and a properly executed Release and Stipulation for Dismissal in exchange for a draft in the amount of TWO THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE DOLLARS AND TWENTY NINE CENTS. ($2,989.29).
Eleven days after recording, on March 18, 1980, the plaintiff served a motion to vacate this order, which was filed on March 19, 1980. A successor trial judge granted the motion1 and subsequently entered the judgment now under review.
Under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(b), a motion for rehearing in a non-jury action must be served not later than 10 days after the entry of judgment, which is deemed to be the date the judgment is recorded. Casto v. Casto (Fla., Case no. 59,255, opinion filed, July 16, 1981). The “motion to vacate” was not served within this time.2 It is therefore clear that the trial court lost jurisdiction over the cause if the quoted order was in fact a final judgment, thus subject to review in the trial court only by a timely motion for rehearing.3 Shelby Mutual Ins. Co. of Shelby, Ohio v. Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla.1970); Kippy Corp. v. Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1965); In re Estate of Beeman, 391 So. 2d 276, 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). We hold that it was.4
As the familiar rule was succinctly stated in Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So. 2d 800 (Fla.1954), “the test of a final judgment is whether the judicial labor is at an end.” 72 So. 2d at 801. 3 Fla.Jur.2d Appellate Review § 51, n. 89 (1978). This is plainly true of the “Order Enforcing Settlement.” There was nothing whatever left for the court to do in the pending action, other than to enforce what the order required of the parties. See, Hensley v. Palmer, 59 So. 2d 851 (Fla.1952); 3 Fla.Jur.2d, supra, n. 90. The plaintiff’s contention that a subsequent formal order of dismissal was necessary to terminate the action is untenable. By the terms of Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.420(a)(l)(ii), an action may be dismissed, specifically “without order of court” [e. s.], simply by filing a stipulation for dismissal, such as that provided by the judgment itself.
Reversed.5
. But see Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla.1956); Bailey v. Bailey, 204 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967).
. March 17, 1980, the tenth day after recording, fell on a Monday. Thus, there was no extension under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.090(a).
. In contrast, the trial court retains jurisdiction to alter interlocutory orders at any time prior to final judgment. North Shore Hospital, Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla.1962); Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Wright, 307 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975).
. We note that Travelers did not call the jurisdictional defect to the attention of the trial court.
. The effect of this disposition is to recognize the continuing efficacy of the order of March 5, 1980.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…from judgment is final in nature. 7 J. Moore, J. Lucas, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 60.30[3] (2d ed. 1985). It completes the judicial labor on the issues raised by the motion, see Kippy Corp., 177 So. 2d at 195-96; Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Walker, 401 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Co. v. Austin Carpet Service, Inc., 382 So. 2d 305 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979), and no further proceedings in the cause are contemplated upon rendition of the order.7 See DeFilippis v. DeFilippis, 378 So. 2d…1 / 2
-
Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…whether the judicial labor is at an end.” Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So. 2d 800, 801 (Fla.1954). Accord Financial International Life Insurance Co. v. Beta Trust Corporation, Ltd., 405 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); The Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Walker, 401 So. 2d 1147 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Palardy v. Igrec, 388 So. 2d 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). As we have previously observed: The traditional test usually employed by the courts of this state in determining the finality of an order, judgment, or decree is whether the…
-
MCR Funding & Mortg. Cap. Res. Corp. v. CMG Funding Corp., 771 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…450 So. 2d at 600-01. On some occasions, as in the instant case, settlement is reached, and dismissal is later achieved by the parties without an order of court pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.420.1 See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Walker, 401 So. 2d 1147, 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). When this is the route taken and the parties have neither presented the settlement agree [*35] ment to the judge nor obtained an order of dismissal predicated upon the same, a party will not be able to obtain enforcement of…
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 (11 total)
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- The Kippy Corp. v. Sherwood Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1965)
- Shelby Mut. Ins. Co. OF Shelby v. Tillman Pearson, 236 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1970)
- Groover v. Walker, 88 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 1956)
- Slatcoff v. Dezen, 72 So. 2d 800 (Fla. 1954)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Calero, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In re Est. of George E. Beeman, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Hensley v. Palmer, 59 So.2d 851 (Fla. 1952)
- Bailey v. Bailey, 204 So. 2d 531 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- Nahoom v. Nahoom, 341 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)