WILLIAM G. PALMER, APPELLANT,
v.
INEZ PALMER, 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 this dissolution of marriage case, the trial court granted the ex-wife's motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, finding her mentally incompetent to enter the property settlement agreement and voiding the 1980 judgment. The appellate court reversed, holding that a judgment based on a voidable (rather than void) contract is not subject to attack under Rule 1.540 absent a showing of lack of jurisdiction.
The court reversed, holding that the judgment was not void for lack of jurisdiction and therefore could not be attacked under Rule 1.540(b) outside the one-year filing deadline. A contract entered into by someone mentally incompetent is voidable, not void, and a final judgment adjudicating rights under a voidable contract is not void merely because it may be erroneous.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b) must be filed within one year of the judgment, unless the judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction.
[2] A contract entered into by an individual lacking mental competence is voidable, not void.
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“The contract of one who is not mentally competent to contract is not void but voidable.”
Establishes the critical distinction between void and voidable contracts that governs the availability of Rule 1.540 relief.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA property settlement agreement was entered into by the parties in a dissolution of marriage case, and judgment was rendered in 1980 adopting that agr…
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 Voidable Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
[*222] COWART, Judge.
This appeal is from an order granting appellant’s motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 for relief from judgment in a dissolution of marriage case.1 The motion for relief from judgment was filed on January 4, 1985. The judgment in question, entered in 1980, adopted a property settlement agreement. The trial court determined that the ex-wife was not mentally competent to enter into the property settlement agreement, granted her motion for relief, declared the property settlement agreement void and “reopened” the case to consider anew the alimony and property distribution issues. We reverse.
A motion for relief from judgment under rule 1.540(b) must be filed within one year of the judgment, except that a judgment void for lack of jurisdiction can be attacked at anytime. See DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1984).
The contract of one who is not mentally competent to contract is not void but voidable. . A final judgment adjudicating rights of parties under a voidable contract is not void although under some circumstances the judgment may be successfully attacked by a timely motion under rule 1.540(b). If a court has subject matter jurisdiction and that jurisdiction has been properly invoked by pleadings and properly perfected by service of process, its judgments, although erroneous as to law or fact and subject to reversal on appeal, are nevertheless not void. See DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1984); Watkins v. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712, 191 So. 2 (1939); Malone v. Meres, 91 Fla. 709, 109 So. 677 (1926); Chang v. Chang, 469 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Space Coast Credit Union v. The First, F.A., 467 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985); Whigham v. Whigham, 464 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), rev. denied, 475 So. 2d 696 (Fla.1985); Florida Power and Light Company v. Canal Authority, 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), pet. denied, 434 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1983). Girteit v. Girteit, 400 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Waiswilos v. Feacher, 370 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Varnes v. Kirk, 251 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971).
The motion did not allege, nor do the facts support, the conclusion that the judgment in this case was void for lack of jurisdiction. The motion for relief from judgment should not have been granted.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and ORFINGER, JJ„ concur. . We have jurisdiction pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Adoption OF D.P.P. v. C.P., 158 So. 3d 633 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (emphasis omitted). In general, a void judgment is entered without subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Zitani v. Reed, 992 So. 2d 403, 408 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Sterling Factors Corp., 968 So. 2d at 665; Palmer v. Palmer, 479 So. 2d 221, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“If a court has subject matter jurisdiction and that jurisdiction has been properly invoked by pleadings and properly perfected by service of process, its judgments, although erroneous as to law or fact and subject to rever…
-
Miller v. Preefer, 1 So. 3d 1278 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…voidable” judgment. A void judgment is one entered in the absence of the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person. See, e.g., Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Natl Ass’n, 968 So. 2d 658, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Palmer v. Palmer, 479 So. 2d 221, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“If a court has subject matter jurisdiction and that jurisdiction has been properly invoked by pleadings and properly perfected by service of process, its judgments, although erroneous as to law or fact and subject to rever…
-
Condo. Ass'n OF LA MER Ests., Inc. v. The Bank OF NEW York Mellon Corp., 137 So. 3d 396 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…oidable” judgment. A void judgment is one entered in the absence of the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter or the person. See, e.g., Sterling Factors Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 968 So. 2d 658, 665 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Palmer v. Palmer, 479 So. 2d 221, 221 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985) (“If a court has subject matter jurisdiction and that jurisdiction has been properly invoked by pleadings and properly perfected by service of process, its judgments, although erroneous as to law or fact and subject to rever…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Malone v. Meres, 109 So. 677 (Fla. 1926)
- DeCLAIRE v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1984)
- Watkins v. Mrs. W. C. Johnson, 139 Fla. 712 (Fla. 1939)
- Royal Frozen Fish Co., Inc. v. Amer Seafoods, Inc., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. The Canal Auth. OF the State OF Fla., 423 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Space Coast Credit Union v. THE First, 467 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Whigham v. Whigham, 464 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)
- Varnes v. Kirk, 251 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Waiswilos v. Feacher, 370 So. 2d 1250 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Tsung-Ya (ZIA) Chang v. Chang, 469 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)