R. CUSHMAN BLETHEN AND C.N.B. LAND SERVICES,INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
LESTER B. HENRY AND MARGARET HENRY, HIS WIFE, 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.
The appellants (Blethen and C.N.B. Land Services) won a dismissal and attorney's fees award against the Henrys in circuit court. The trial court later declared its own fee award null and void without a motion from the Henrys. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court cannot unilaterally set aside a final judgment absent a proper motion for relief from judgment.
A trial court lacks authority to set aside a final judgment that a prevailing party has relied upon, absent a motion from the aggrieved party filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). The trial court's unilateral declaration that the fee award and sheriff's sale were null and void was therefore improper.
[1] A trial court cannot sua sponte declare a prior order awarding attorney's fees null and void when the aggrieved party has not filed a motion for relief from judgment.
[2] A trial court order awarding attorney's fees, which is not appealed and from which no motion for relief from judgment is filed, remains valid.
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“We can find no authority for a trial court to set aside an order that a prevailing party had relied upon, absent a motion from the aggrieved party.”
Establishes the core holding that a trial court cannot unilaterally vacate its own final judgment without a party's motion for relief
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Henrys filed a complaint against Blethen and C.N.B. Land Services. Discovery revealed the Henrys' damages were below the circuit court's jurisdict…
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 Jurisdictional Threshold cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Acting Chief Judge.
Mr. Blethen and C.N.B. Land Services challenge the trial court’s ruling that its previous order taxing attorney’s fees against the Henrys was null and void. We reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the order awarding fees to the appellants.
This case initially arose when Mr. and Mrs. Henry filed a complaint in circuit court against Mr. Blethen and C.N.B. The Hen-rys’ answers to interrogatories revealed that their alleged damages were below the jurisdictional threshold of the circuit court. The appellants filed a motion to dismiss, and on December 30, 1992, the court dismissed the case, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction.
In February 1993 the court granted the appellants’ motion for attorney’s fees. Mr. Blethen and C.N.B. obtained a writ of execution based on their judgment for fees, and caused the sheriff of Highlands County to levy on a parcel of real property the Henrys owned. The appellants purchased the real estate at the sheriffs sale. Apparently, the Henrys refused to vacate the property because Mr. Blethen and C.N.B. filed a motion for writ of possession on July 2, 1993. At a hearing on that motion, held August 2, 1993, the trial court entered an order declaring its previous order on attorney’s fees null and void. It further ruled that the sheriffs sale was also null and void, and therefore denied the appellants’ motion for writ of possession.
The Henrys never appealed the award of attorney’s fees, nor did they file a motion in the lower court for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We can find no authority for a trial court to set aside an order that a prevailing party had relied upon, absent a motion from the aggrieved party. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540(b) (“On motion, and on such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, or order_”) (emphasis supplied). Accordingly, we reverse the order declaring that the fee order and the sheriffs sale conducted pursuant to the fee order were null and void. We remand with directions to reinstate the February 24, 1993, order awarding attorney’s fees to Mr. Blethen and C.N.B.
Reversed and remanded.
BLUE and FULMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Caufield v. Gino Cantele and Armando Cantele, 745 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…rty to attorney’s fees2 definitely and with finality and logically should be reviewable under rule 9.110. No more judicial labor is contemplated.3 Levy and exe- [*435] cutíon is possible following entry of an order making an award. Blethen v. Henry, 661 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1995). Although the lawsuit may be later refiled following a voluntary dismissal, as to the attorney’s work effort involved in the dismissed suit, the ruling is final, and it cannot be revived. See McKelvey v. Kismet, Inc., 430 So. 2d…