MICHAEL NEWELL, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL MOORE, F.D.O.C., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Timely Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*539] PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court denied a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment. In this motion the appellant indicated that he had received a misdated copy of the judgment and that this frustrated his ability to timely appeal therefrom. The appellant asked the court to vacate and then reenter the prior order, so as to preserve his right to appeal. Although the court found that the order in the court file was properly dated, cases such as Griffin v. Florida Parole Commission, 727 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and Gibson v. Buice, 381 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), suggest that such relief should be afforded under rule 1.540(b) when a party does not receive a copy of the order as entered by the court. The appellant’s motion is thus facially sufficient and may warrant relief if the allegations therein are established as accurate and true. The appealed order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.
ALLEN, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Waters v. Childers, 198 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…t summarily denied the motion, and this appeal followed. A party can seek relief under rule 1.540(b) when he or she does not receive a copy of an order entered by the court until after the time for filing an appeal has expired. See Newell v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Griffin v. Fla, Parole Comm’n, 727 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); Brown v. State, 708 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Woldarsky v. Woldarsky, 243 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). If the motion is facially sufficient and n…
-
Newell v. Moore, 819 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)…to his earlier appeal. In that appeal this court determined that the appellant had made a facially sufficient claim under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), and this court reversed the trial court’s denial of that motion. See Newell v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). In thereafter denying the rule 9.400(a) costs motion the trial court found that the appellant is not entitled to such relief because he did not prevail on the merits of his earlier claim. But a rule 9.400(a) costs award does not…
-
G.C. and D.C. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 796 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…d that this was due to the trial court’s failure to provide them with timely written notice of rendition of the order. Thus our previous dismissal of appeal 5D00-644 as being untimely was improvident and we grant belated review. See Newell v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); Gibson v. Buice, 381 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). We reject the Department’s contention that this appeal is somehow moot. In light of this court’s decision in G.C. v. Department of Children and Families, 791 So. 2d 17 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Robert M. Gibson et ux. v. Buice, 381 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Griffin v. Fla. Parole Comm'n, 727 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)