BRE SKY
v.
LANTANA
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.
BRE SKY BO HOLDINGS, INC. appealed a code enforcement order from the Town of Lantana that was amended to correct the name of the respondent. The appellate court reversed, holding that the change from naming an individual (Bowen Gillespie) to a corporation (Bre Sky Bo Holdings, Inc.) constituted a judicial error affecting the substance of the order, not a mere clerical error within the Special Magistrate's authority to correct.
The court held that the Special Magistrate lacked inherent authority to make the correction because changing the respondent's identity from an individual to a corporation constitutes a judicial error affecting the substance of the order, not a mere clerical error. Administrative tribunals possess inherent authority only to correct clerical errors arising from mistake or inadvertence, not errors affecting the substance or legal rights established in the original order.
[1] An administrative tribunal possesses inherent authority to correct clerical errors in its orders that arise from mistake or inadvertence.
[2] A judicial error, unlike a clerical error, is one that affects the substance of an administrative order or 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“An administrative tribunal possesses inherent authority to correct its own orders which contain clerical errors arising from mistake or inadvertence.”
Establishes the general rule allowing administrative tribunals to correct their own orders, but only for clerical errors.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA code enforcement order was originally issued naming Bowen Gillespie c/o Bre Sky Bo Holdings, LLC as the respondent. The Special Magistrate then ente…
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 Judicial Error cases and more on FLexlaw
The Appellant, BRE SKY BO HOLDINGS, INC. appealed an order from the Special Magistrate of the TOWN OF LANTANA, FLORIDA ("Town"). The appealed order amends a previous code enforcement order to change the name of the respondent due to two errors. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the Special Magistrate erred in entering the corrective order, and reverse.
An administrative tribunal possesses inherent authority to correct its own orders which contain clerical errors arising from mistake or inadvertence. See Taylor v. Dep't of Prof. Regulation, 520 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1988). Listing the respondent and property owner as Bre Sky Bo Holdings, LLC rather than Bre Sky Bo Holdings, Inc. in the final order would have been a clerical error arising from mistake or inadvertence. See Wells v. State, 796 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001 (holding that correction of convicted defendant's name to include designation "Jr." did not affect or alter the conviction settled by the final judgment).
However, changing "Bowen Gillespie c/o Bre Sky Bo Holdings, LLC" to "Bre Sky Bo Holdings, Inc." is not merely clerical in nature, as it changes the identity of the respondent from the individual Bowen Gillespie to the corporation Bre Sky Bo Holdings, Inc. In Ventriglia v. Vaughan, 623 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the court explained that a judicial error, unlike a clerical error, is one that affects the substance of the order or judgment. See also State, Dept. of Revenue By and on Behalf of Thomas v. Thomas, 675 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (clerical mistakes result from accidental slip or omission); Clearwater Oaks Bank v. Plumtree, 477 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Moforis v. Moforis, 977 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
The code enforcement board misidentified the respondent as Bowen Gillespie throughout the original proceedings and not merely as a clerical error in the final order. Cf. DeGale v. Krongold, Bass & Todd, 773 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (holding that lower court may amend order to correct spelling of one plaintiff's name without disturbing or revising legal rights and obligations settled in original order).
Therefore, the special magistrate did not have inherent authority to correct the mistake because it was a judicial error that affected the substance of the final order.
Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is REVERSED.
HAFELE, BARKDULL, and MARX, JJ. concur
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Taylor v. Dep't of Prof'l Reg., 520 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1988)
- DeGALE v. Krongold, 773 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Wells v. State, 796 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Clearwater Oaks Bank v. Plumtree, 477 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- State v. Thomas, 675 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Stavros Moforis v. Moforis, 977 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- Ventriglia v. Vaughan, 623 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)