MARY GWENDOLYN THOMAS THEISEN, ETC., APPELLANT,
v.
OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL, 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.
A former employee's personal representative sought relief from a final judgment barring a negligence suit against an employer's subcontractor, arguing that an intervening Florida Supreme Court decision changed the controlling law. The court held that res judicata and finality principles bar such relief, as a change in law from an unrelated appellate decision is not grounds for reopening a final judgment under Rule 1.540(b).
A final judgment cannot be reopened under Rule 1.540(b) due to a change in law resulting from a later appellate decision in an unrelated case. Once a judgment becomes final, res judicata principles and the doctrine of finality bar relief based on intervening changes in the law by unrelated appellate decisions.
[1] A change in the applicable rule of law resulting from a later appellate decision in an unrelated case is not a ground for relief from a prior final judgment under Florida…
[2] The doctrine of res judicata bars relief from a judgment after it has become truly final.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“After a judgment has become truly final, a change in the applicable rule of law resulting from a later appellate decision in an unrelated case is not a ground for relief from the prior final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).”
Establishes the core holding that intervening changes in law from unrelated cases cannot reopen final judgments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant was the personal representative of a deceased employee who had worker's compensation benefits. The appellant sued the employer's subcontract…
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
COWART, Judge.
This case involves a motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), for relief from a final judgment on the ground that a subsequent appellate decision in an unrelated case changed the rule of law upon which the final judgment was based.
Appellant, the personal representative of a deceased employee with worker’s compensation benefits, sued the employer’s subcontractor based on negligence of the subcontractor’s employee causing the death of the employee. This court affirmed the trial court ruling that the worker’s compensation law barred the action. See Theisen v. Simmons, 419 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Later, in a completely unrelated case, the Florida Supreme Court apparently adopted a contrary view. See Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So. 2d 953 (Fla.1983). Based on Abernathy, appellant moved the trial court under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) for relief from the prior judgment in Theisen and appeals a denial of its motion. We affirm.
The original judgment in Theisen became final when the time for rehearing and certiorari review in that case expired and passed beyond the authority of this court to reconsider after expiration of the term in which it was rendered in this court.1 The doctrine of res judicata bars appellant’s relief from the judgment in Theisen. See Plymouth Citrus Products Co-Op. v. Williamson, 71 So. 2d 162 (Fla.1954); Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Roper, 438 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
After a judgment has become truly final, a change in the applicable rule of law resulting from a later appellate decision in an unrelated case is not a ground for relief from the prior final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). See Plymouth Citrus Products Co-Op. v. Williamson, supra; American Fire and Casualty Company v. Dawson, 400 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Ellis National Bank of Tallahassee v. Davis, 379 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). See also Penthouse North Association v. Lombardi, 461 So. 2d 1350 (Fla.1984). Cf. Brunner Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla.1984), where the cause was still pending as to the parties and issue and the appellate court had jurisdiction and authority to modify the law of that very case.
AFFIRMED.
COBB, C.J., and ORFINGER, J., concur. . See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Judges of the District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla.1981); Orange Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Dykes, 444 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petrysian v. Metro. Gen. Ins. Co., 672 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)…decision. It is likely she would have prevailed had she done so. A change in the applicable rule of law resulting from a later appellate decision in an unrelated case is not a ground to vacate a final order. Theisen v. Old Republic Insurance Co., 468 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We regret that appellant was frustrated by the timing of the supreme court’s decisions, but we cannot grant relief from the application of the law as it existed at the time of her appeal. AFFIRMED. PETERSON, C.J., and DAUKSC…
-
L.W.T., Inc. v. Schmidt (Fla. 5th DCA 2021)…” to liquidated damages upon default, see Ciotti v. Hubsch, 302 So. 3d 497, 500 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020), this change in the law is not a valid basis to vacate the judgment against Schmidt that became final back in 2000. See Theisen v. Old Republic Ins., 468 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“After a judgment has become truly final, a change in the applicable rule of law resulting from a later appellate decision in an unrelated case is not a ground for relief from the prior final judgment under Florida Rule of…
-
Chavez v. Tower Hill Signature Ins. Co. (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…trial court, then, committed reversible error in denying Southern Bell's motion for summary judgment as to the malicious prosecution count. Roper, So. 2d at 1048 (second, third, and fourth emphasis added); accord Theiesen v. Old Republic Ins. Co., 468 So. 2d 434, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). Based upon the well-established law, we hold that to the extent that our post-Slayton jurisprudence, issued well after our mandate in Chavez I, constituted an “intervening change in the law” that would have required a diffe…
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
- Brunner Enters., Inc. v. Dep't OF Revenue of the State of Fla., 452 So. 2d 550 (Fla. 1984)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Judges OF the Dist. Court OF Appeal, 405 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 1981)
- Emp'rs Ins. OF Wausau v. Abernathy, 442 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 1983)
- Penthouse N. Ass'n, Inc. v. Remo M. Lombardi, 461 So. 2d 1350 (Fla. 1984)
- Plymouth Citrus Prods. Co-Op. v. Williamson, 71 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1954)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Roper, 438 So. 2d 1046 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Am. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dawson, 400 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Theisen v. Simmons, 419 So. 2d 662 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Orange Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Dykes, 444 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Ellis Nat'l Bank OF Tallahassee v. Davis, 379 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)