LAURIE ANN GOSTYLA, APPELLANT,
v.
SCOTT GOSTYLA, 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.
Laurie Ann Gostyla appealed an order denying her motion to set aside a final judgment of dissolution based on her former husband's alleged fraud. The appellate court reversed, holding that Gostyla adequately alleged intrinsic fraud and was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of her motion, which the trial court improperly denied without such a hearing.
Yes. The trial court erred in denying Ms. Gostyla's motion for relief from judgment without an evidentiary hearing. Because her motion sufficiently alleged intrinsic fraud, she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of her motion to set aside the final judgment.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment alleging intrinsic fraud, even if mischaracterized as "fraud on the court," is sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing on the merit…
[2] A party defending their motion against a motion to strike is not presenting evidence in support of their motion for relief from 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“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes the legal standard that allegations of intrinsic fraud entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott and Laurie Ann Gostyla were divorced pursuant to a final judgment that incorporated a mediation agreement. Nearly a year later, Laurie filed a m…
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 Florida Family Law Rule Of Procedure 12.540 cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
Laurie Ann Gostyla appeals an order denying her motion for relief from a final judgment of dissolution, filed pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540.1 We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on her motion.
Almost a year after the dissolution judgment was rendered, Ms. Gostyla filed a motion to set it aside. She alleged that at the final hearing, Scott Gostyla, her former husband, lied under oath about matters not covered in a prior mediation agreement, which the trial court approved and incorporated into the final judgment. Essentially, she maintained that her former husband failed to disclose approximately $39,000, which was deposited in bank accounts that he controlled.
Ms. Gostyla’s motion to set aside was scheduled to be heard at a 30-minute hearing on August 26, 1997. Mr. Gostyla filed a motion to strike his former wife’s notice of hearing. He also filed a motion to strike his former wife’s motion to set aside on the basis that Ms. Gostyla was abusing the system by trying to enforce the judgment and, at the same time, trying to set it aside.
Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, the trial court entered an order striking the notice of hearing on Ms. Gostyla’s motion, and scheduling a hearing for August 26, 1997, only on Mr. Gostyla’s motion to strike. The trial court’s order stated that a hearing on Ms. Gostyla’s motion to set aside would be rescheduled for a 59-minute hearing at a later time.
At the August 26 hearing, Ms. Gostyla acknowledged that it ultimately would be her burden to prove her former husband’s fraud or misrepresentation. This was the reason, she argued, that her “motion should stand and the Court should hear” it. The trial court requested the parties provide certain documents and took the matter under advisement. Two weeks later, the trial court denied Ms. Gostyla’s motion on the merits with no notice or hearing.
Initially, we reject Mr. Gostyla’s contention that Ms. Gostyla argued the merits of her motion for relief from judgment at the August 26 hearing. It is obvious from her remarks at that hearing that Ms. Gostyla was defending her motion against Mr. Gostyla’s motion to strike, and not presenting evidence in support of her motion. Because Ms. Gost-yla’s motion sufficiently alleges intrinsic fraud, although employing the often-used misnomer of “fraud on the court,” see generally DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla.1984); Guerriero v. Schaub, 579 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991), she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of her motion. See Franko v. Ryan-Franko, 679 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Stella v. Stella, 418 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Cf. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (affirming denial of pro se husband’s motion for relief from judgment, without evidentiary hearing, where motion attempted to relitigate issues raised at trial). Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying Ms. Gostyla’s motion. We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for an evidentiary hearing on Ms. Gostyla’s motion to set aside the final judgment of dissolution.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
THREÁDGILL, A.C.J., and FULMER, J., concur. . Although Ms. Gostyla’s motion is titled "motion to set aside final judgment," it is clear that she seeks relief from the judgment which, she maintains, approved a mediation agreement based upon Mr. Gostyla’s fraud.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cherie Wheaton Hinson v. Kristopher B. Hinson, 985 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…t. Where a motion for relief from judgment alleges “colorable entitlement to relief,” it should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Gostyla v. Gostyla, 708 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Pelekis v. Fla. Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding evidentiary hearing not required…
-
Johnson v. Johnson, 738 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…ing the judge to believe that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, the judge has [*510] reversibly erred.”). If appellant pled fraud with sufficient particularity, she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits. See Gostyla v. Gostyla, 708 So. 2d 674, 675 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (finding a motion to set aside final dissolution of marriage that sufficiently alleged intrinsic fraud entitled appellant to a hearing on the merits of the motion). Accordingly, we reverse on this point and remand to the tria…
-
Heidkamp v. Warren, 990 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…hearing sufficiently alleges misconduct on the part of the former husband which, if proven, would entitle her to relief under rule 1.530. She was therefore entitled to an evidentia-ry hearing on the merits of her allegations. See Gostyla v. Gostyla, 708 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (holding that the wife was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the merits of her motion to set aside the final judgment of dissolution where the motion alleged that the husband committed fraud by lying about his assets under oat…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DeCLAIRE v. Yohanan, 453 So. 2d 375 (Fla. 1984)
- Flemenbaum v. Lily Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Stella v. Stella, 418 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Guerriero v. Schaub, 579 So. 2d 370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Franko v. Ryan-Franko, 679 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)