RONALD F. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
MARCUS BERNARD SCOTT, PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT & ENGINEERING COMPANY, A TEXAS CORPORATION, APPELLEES
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction To Amend Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ronald L. Wright appeals a final summary judgment adding him, individually, to a final judgment obtained by appellee, Marcus Bernard Scott, several years earlier. However, Scott’s motion to correct the final judgment, which was made pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), was filed more than two years after entry of the initial final judgment, and nearly 18 months after entry of the last amended final judgment. Therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to amend the final judgment by adding Wright, because more than one year had passed since entry of the last amended final judgment. Kippy Corp. v. Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193 (Fla.1965); Hartley v. Andriuli, 595 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); St. Cloud Utilities v. Moore, 410 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Avant v. Waites, 295 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Even though Wright failed to raise this error below, it is fundamental error which can be raised for the first time on appeal. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla.1970); Love v. Hannah, 72 So. 2d 39 (Fla.1954); Hadley v. Hadley, 140 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
REVERSED.
ERVIN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bank ONE v. Arleen Batronie and Gene Batronie, 884 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…ion to amend a six-year-old final judgment because, among other reasons, the time limit of rule 1.540 had expired, even though both parties believed the trial court had such jurisdiction when they each sought to amend the judgment); Wright v. Scott, 658 So. 2d 1215, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (holding that the failure to comply with the jurisdictional time limit of rule 1.540(b) was “fundamental error which can be raised for the first time on appeal”). Therefore, because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to…
-
Steel v. State, 684 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…ture of the error—defense counsel’s false and admittedly unfounded accusation against the victim—we cannot conclude, based on the record attachments provided, that defense counsel’s deficient conduct did not affect the result. See. Goswick v. State, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). An evidentiary hearing must therefore be held on defendant’s claim that absent the deficient conduct, the result would have been different. See Anthony v. State, 660 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Defendant asserts, as another…
-
Tannenbaum v. Siobhan H. Shea, 133 So. 3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…ption to the rule of finality,” Rule. 1.540’s application is “narrow,” Molinos Del S.A. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 947 So. 2d 521, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), and is constrained by the time restrictions contained in the rule. See Wright v. Scott, 658 So. 2d 1215, 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Such limitations conform the rule to the Florida Supreme Court’s mandate that Rule 1.540 never “‘serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by Rule 1.530 nor as a substitute for appellate review of judici…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 1970)
- The Kippy Corp. v. Sherwood Colburn, 177 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 1965)
- Love v. Hannah, 72 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 1954)
- ST. Cloud Utils. v. Erick S. Moore, 410 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Etheline Hadley v. Hadley, 140 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- Mrs. Fenton Davis Avant v. Waites, 295 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Hartley v. Andriuli, 595 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)