GULFSTREAM MICRO SYSTEMS, INC., F/K/A GULFSTREAM MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., AND GREGORY A. FRIEDMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
KINGSBRIDGE BOCA ASSOCIATES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, 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.
The court held that a trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under Rule 1.540(b) when the motion was made more than one year after the judgment was entered.
Appellee moved to correct a judgment, initially seeking relief only for a clerical mistake under Rule 1.540(a). Fifteen months later, at a hearing, ap…
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 Jurisdiction Of Trial Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse an order granting a motion to correct and amend a judgment. The appellee initially moved only for relief on a claim of clerical mistake. Rule 1.540(a), Fla.R.Civ.P. At a hearing on that motion, fifteen months after the judgment, the appellee, for the first time, orally sought to amend, pursuant to rule 1.540(b), to correct a substantive error due to excusable neglect or mistake.
It is clear that appellee was not entitled to relief under subsection (a) of the rule. Cf. Frisard v. Frisard, 497 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); McKibbin v. Fujarek, 385 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Peters v. Peters, 479 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). The proposed amendment of the judgment substantially changed its impact and effect.
Appellee’s oral motion to amend the judgment pursuant to rule 1.540(b) was untimely. The rule specifies that such a motion be made not more than one year after entry of the judgment. There was nothing in the original motion based on clerical error to indicate that appellee was claiming under rule 1.540(b). We conclude that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief ordered under subsection (b). E.g. Metropolitan Dade County v. Certain Lands upon which Assessments are Delinquent, 471 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We consider E.F. Hutton v. Sussman, 504 So. 2d 1372, 1373 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), relied upon by appellee, to be inapposite.
Therefore, the trial court’s order granting appellee’s motion is reversed. Upon remand, the amended final judgment should be vacated and the original judgment reinstated.
LETTS, DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lorant v. Whitney Nat'l Bank, 162 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…k, 385 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)). And relief under Rule 1.540(a) may not be appropriate where “[t]he proposed amendment of the judgment substantially change[s] its impact and effect.” Gulfstream Micro Sys., Inc. v. Kingsbridge Boca Associates, 564 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). The mistake involved in this case resulted in the trial court “supplementing” its initial final deficiency judgment in order to more definitively address the litigation status of the three party defendants. This correction…
-
Dolin v. Dolin, 654 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…lacked jurisdiction to make any substantive changes to the order being appealed. State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation v. Apelgren, 611 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Gulfstream Micro Systems, Inc. v. Kingsbridge Boca Associates, 564 So. 2d 554 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Counsel for Philip had sought to correct the prior contempt order by claiming it was a clerical mistake or error, which can be remedied while an appeal is pending pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a). Changing th…
-
Tucker v. Jammie Tucker (Fla. 5th DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- McKIBBIN v. Fujarek, 385 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Wilder v. Wilder, 251 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- E.F. Hutton v. Sussman, 504 So. 2d 1372 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Frisard v. Frisard, 497 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Certain Lands Upon Which Assessments Are Delinquent, 471 So. 2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Peters v. Peters, 479 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)