FRANCES ELAINE STELLA, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH GEORGE STELLA, 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.
In a divorce proceeding, the wife sought relief based on allegations of fraud regarding the husband's testimony about the value of art objects. The trial court denied her motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing, but the appellate court reversed, holding that a party alleging fraud by an adverse party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
A party asserting fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue, whether the fraud claim is raised in a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530 or a motion under Rule 1.540(b), provided the party raises the issue as soon as reasonably possible.
[1] A party alleging fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct by an adverse party under Rule 1.540(b)(3) is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
[2] A motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530 or Rule 1.540(b) may be the proper vehicle to assert fraud discovered after final judgment.
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“If proven, this conduct would constitute the kind of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party contemplated by the provisions of Rule 1.540(b)(3).”
Establishes that the wife's fraud allegations fall within the scope of cognizable grounds for post-judgment relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing entry of final judgment in a dissolution proceeding, the wife filed a motion for new trial. She then amended this motion to assert fraud by …
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 Fraudulent Conduct cases and more on FLexlaw
ANSTEAD, Judge.
Following entry of a final judgment in this dissolution proceeding the wife filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530. No written order was ever entered on the motion.
However, following a hearing thereon, the wife filed a motion to amend her motion for new trial asserting fraud by the husband with respect to his trial testimony as to the value of certain art objects. A hearing was held on the motion to amend at which the husband’s attorney objected to the receipt of any evidence.
The trial court chose to treat this motion as one filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) and denied it without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
The court concluded that the wife was really relying on newly discovered evidence of the value of the art objects that she had discovered after the trial but that she could have discovered with the exercise of due diligence before trial. The wife then brought this appeal asserting her right to an evidentiary hearing.
Although we find the motion of the wife to be less than artfully drawn and the statement of her position to the trial court and now on appeal to be less than clear-cut, we conclude that she is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on her allegations of fraudulent conduct by the husband. In her brief the wife asserts that the “evidence that the Wife now had showed that the Husband had been fully aware at the time that he testified that the statue was worth $35,000, not $100.” The wife also claims that the husband made substantial misrepresentations as to the value of other valuable art objects. If proven, this conduct would constitute the kind of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party contemplated by the provisions of Rule 1.540(b)(3).
Such conduct may also be the proper subject of a timely filed motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530.1
A party seeking relief on the basis of such misconduct has an obligation to raise this issue as soon as is reasonably possible. If the conduct takes place at trial and a party is then aware of evidence suggesting fraud he has an obligation to present such evidence at trial. On the other hand, if the party only becomes aware of the fraud after final judgment the fraud should be asserted in either a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530 or Rule 1.540(b), depending on the time the fraud is discovered. In either case, however, the party asserting such fraud is entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue.
Accordingly, the order of the trial court is reversed and this cause is remanded with directions that an evidentiary hearing be conducted on the wife’s motion.
HURLEY and DELL, JJ., concur. . From the record it appears that the motion to amend the motion for new trial was timely since no order had yet been entered on the motion for new trial and Rule 1.530(b) allows amendment of a timely filed motion at any time before the motion is determined.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Flemenbaum v. Lily Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)…is unnecessary. The time and expense of needless litigation are avoided and the policy of preserving the finality of judgments is enhanced. Prior decisions of this court contain examples of properly pled rule 1.540(b) motions. In Stella v. Stella, 418 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), the wife’s motion asserted that the husband had testified at trial that a statue was worth $100, while being fully aware that its true value was $35,000. If proven, this allegation would have changed the court’s equitable distri…
-
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required. Rosenthal v. Ford, 443 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pelekis v. Florida Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 751 (Fla.1975); Stella v. Stella, 418 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We have examined Southern Bell’s arguments and the record on the issue of excessiveness of the damage award, and conclude that reversal is not warranted on this issue. Eichholz v. Pepo Petroleum Company, Inc., 475 So. 2d 1244 (…
-
Dynasty Express Corp. v. Bernie T. Weiss, 675 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…urpose of this specificity requirement is to permit the court “to determine whether the movant has made a prima facie showing which would justify relief from judgment,” and is not merely rehashing matters explored at trial. Id. In Stella v. Stella, 418 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), this court determined that an evidentiary hearing was required where the 1.540(b)(3) motion alleged that the husband in a divorce proceeding testified at trial that a statue was worth $100 while he was fully aware that the statu…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence