BONNIE ATLAS, APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF PEMBROKE PINES, 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.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second motion for relief from judgment that relitigates matters settled by a prior order denying relief, and an order denying such a motion is not subject to a motion for rehearing.
A trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain a second motion for relief from judgment that attempts to relitigate matters settled by a prior order denying relief.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a second motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., that attempts to relitigate grounds settled by a…
[2] An order denying a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., is not subject to a motion for rehearing.
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe City of Pembroke Pines filed a motion for relief from judgment alleging defective service of process, which was denied. The city then filed a seco…
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 Void Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
A default and final judgment were entered against the City of Pembroke Pines. Thereafter, the city filed a motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., which alleged that the judgment was void due to defective service of process. The motion was denied. Rather than appeal, the city filed a second, more elaborate motion for relief from judgment which reasserted the same grounds set forth in the first motion. The second motion was granted and this appeal ensued. We reverse.
A trial court is without jurisdiction to entertain a second motion for relief from judgment which attempts to relitigate matters settled by a prior order denying relief. Malicoat v. LaChappelle, 390 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Perkins v. Salem, 249 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). The city attempts to distinguish this case from Mali-coat and Perkins by contending that its second motion — though not styled as such— was actually a motion for rehearing. Thus, it claims not to have taken the impermissible “second bite.” We do not agree. First, the motion’s substance and form do not comport with a motion for rehearing. But more importantly, an order denying a motion for relief from judgment, pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), Fla.R.Civ.P., is not subject to a motion for rehearing. Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982).
Accordingly, the order granting relief from judgment is
REVERSED.
DOWNEY, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…earing on the order denying the motion for relief from judgment, B & E relies principally upon Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), and its progeny Smith v. Weede, 433 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Atlas v. City of Pembroke Pines, 441 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1984); and Irwin v. Walker, 468 So. 2d 241 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). These cases are bottomed on the theory that because orders on 1.540 motions are included within the rule governing review of non-fin…
-
Crocker Invs., Inc. v. Statesman Life Ins. Co., 515 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which attempts to relitigate matters settled by a prior order denying relief. Perkins v. Salem, 249 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971); [*1307] Atlas v. City of Pembroke Pines, 441 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Purcell v. Deli Man, Inc., 411 So. 2d 378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Malicoat v. LaChappelle, 390 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). If a party is dissatisfied with a court’s ruling, the correct remedy is an appeal, not the filing of suc…1 / 2
-
City OF Pembroke Pines v. Atlas, 474 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…eading defect until after entry of final judgment. The only defense available to appellant which survived the post-judgment motion proceedings was lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rule 1.140(h), Fla.R.Civ.P.; see Atlas v. City of Pembroke Pines, 441 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), petition for review denied, 450 So. 2d 485 (Fla.1984). We hold that appellee’s failure to allege compliance with the statutory notice provision did not deprive the circuit court of subject matter jurisdiction because such an all…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Potucek v. Smeja, 419 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)
- Perkins v. Zack A. Salem, 249 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- In the Interest of C. E. M., 390 So. 2d 481 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)