PETER TOMPKINS AND ELIZABETH VREELAND, APPELLANTS,
v.
RAYMOND F. KRAEMER AND ROSE KRAEMER, HIS WIFE, APPELLEES
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 court held that a motion to alter or amend a judgment, served more than ten days after entry, is untimely and deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to grant the motion.
A final judgment of foreclosure was entered, and the defendant later served a motion to alter or amend it to allow installment payments. The trial cou…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540(B) Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
The plaintiffs have perfected this interlocutory appeal to review an order granting a motion to amend the final judgment of foreclosure. We have jurisdiction to review the matter as an order entered after final judgment. Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4).
A final judgment of foreclosure was entered on March 25,1981. On April 13,1981, the defendant served a motion to alter or amend the final judgment so as to authorize the defendants to pay the judgment in monthly installments, which motion was granted.
A motion to alter or amend a judgment must be served not more than ten days after entry of the judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(g) and no enlargement of time is authorized for the making of such a motion. Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.090(b). Because the motion was untimely served, the trial court lost jurisdiction to alter or amend the judgment. Environs Palm Beach v. Donovan, 361 So. 2d 718 (Fla.4th DCA 1978); Kitzmiller v. South east Services, Inc., 358 So. 2d 271 (Fla.3d DCA 1978).
In this case, the motion could not be considered as one praying for relief from judgment because no ultimate facts were alleged to activate the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Duncan v. Allman, 386 So. 2d 6 (Fla.4th DCA 1979). See, American National Bank v. Lau, 268 So. 2d 567 (Fla.2d DCA 1972), cert. denied, 273 So. 2d 81 (Fla.1973).
This disposition renders it unnecessary to determine whether the defendants were entitled, under the substantive law, to the relief granted.
For the foregoing reasons, the amended final judgment is reversed with directions to reinstate the original final judgment of foreclosure.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales del Ecuador, 530 So. 2d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…ure 1.540. Compare Pruitt v. Brock, 437 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983) with Cuiffo v. Coconuts Recording Co., 455 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). . The motion for rehearing must be timely filed in order to suspend rendition. In Tompkins v. Kraemer, 402 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), this court assumed jurisdiction under Rule 9.130(a)(4). The trial court issued an order, and then granted a party’s motion to amend the order. However, the motion for rehearing was filed after the deadline for such motions, and t…
-
Clearwater Oaks Bank v. Plumtree, 477 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)…e entry of the judgment. A motion to alter or amend a final judgment must be served not later than ten days after entry of the judgment or the trial court loses jurisdiction to alter or amend the judgment. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(g); Tompkins v. Kraemer, 402 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). Because Plumtree’s motion was untimely, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the nunc pro tunc judgment. Plumtree argues that the motion was timely in that it sought relief from a clerical mistake pursuant to Florida Rul…
-
Mocegui v. Pub. Serv. Mut. Ins. Co., 821 So. 2d 1189 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…1.540.” Id. Because PSM did not file a motion to alter or amend the final judgment within ten days of the January 1995 personal injury judgment, the trial court lost jurisdiction to alter or amend the judgment under rule 1.530. Tompkins v. Kraemer, 402 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The second mechanism, rule 1.540, provides an additional procedure where the trial court can reconsider and correct its prior decision. Rule 1.540(a) provides that clerical mistakes may be corrected at any time on the court’s in…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Nat'l Bank v. LAU, 268 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)
- Santini Bros., Inc. v. Bevis, 273 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1973)
- State v. Garcia, 273 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1973)
- Kitzmiller v. Se. Servs., Inc., 358 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Environs Palm Beach v. Donovan, 361 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Duncan v. Allman, 386 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)