ANALYTE DIAGNOSTICS, INC., SIMPLEX MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., HENRY B. SCHUR AND NICHOLAS G. LEVANDOSKI, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH P. D'ANGELO, AMERICARE TRAN-STECH, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AMERICARE BIOLOGICALS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, TECHNICAL CHEMICALS & PRODUCTS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, JACK L. ARONOWITZ, AND JOHN H. FARO, 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.
Appellants challenged a trial court's denial of their Rule 1.540 motion to vacate a judgment based on alleged fraud on the court. The court reversed, holding that the trial court erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine to bar reconsideration of the fraud allegations, as the appellate court had neither considered nor ruled on the merits of the fraud claim.
The trial court erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine because the alleged fraud on the court was never actually considered and decided by the appellate court on the merits. The denial of the motion to relinquish jurisdiction does not constitute a decision on the merits of the fraud claim, and therefore the per curiam affirmance does not bar the trial court's consideration of the Rule 1.540 motion.
[1] The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually considered and decided by a former appeal.
[2] Denial of a motion to relinquish appellate jurisdiction does not constitute a decision on the merits of the claim for which relinquishment was sought.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The doctrine of the law of the case is applied to issues actually considered and decided by a former appeal involving the same case.”
Establishes the foundational principle that law of the case applies only to issues actually decided on the merits
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was entered in favor of Appellees. Appellants appealed that judgment to the district court. During the pendency of the appeal, Appell…
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 Fraud On The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1272] PER CURIAM.
Appellants (defendants below) appeal the trial court’s denial of their Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 motion to vacate judgment. We conclude that the trial court erroneously applied the law of the case doctrine to the issues raised in the motion and, accordingly, reverse.
A final judgment was entered in favor of Appellees (plaintiffs below) and was appealed to this court by Appellants. During the pendency of that appeal, Appellants allegedly became aware of facts which might suggest fraud on the trial court by one of the appellees. Appellants sought, but were denied, relinquishment of this court’s jurisdiction to permit the trial court to rule on their rule 1.540 motion. Subsequently, this court issued its per cu-riam affirmance of the final judgment on appeal. Schur v. D’Angelo, 757 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
After the appeal was completed, Appellants filed their motion to vacate judgment, citing as grounds the alleged fraud on the court. The trial court determined that because this court had denied the motion to relinquish jurisdiction to consider the alleged fraud on the court and, further, because the issue had been raised in the parties’ briefs, that the per curiam affir-mance of the final judgment had effectively resolved the issues raised in the rule 1.540 motion and constituted the law of the case.
The doctrine of the law of the case is applied to issues actually considered and decided by a former appeal involving the same case. Two M Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Here, however, even though the issue was presented to this court, it was not properly before it as the question had neither been considered nor ruled upon below. See Hollywood, Inc. v. Clark, 158 Fla. 501, 15 So. 2d 175 (1943). Furthermore, the denial of the motion to relinquish jurisdiction cannot be considered a decision on the merits of the claim for which relinquishment is sought. See State v. Meneses, 392 So. 2d 905 (Fla.1981); Glatstein v. City of Miami, 391 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Hardwicke Cos. v. Freed, 292 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Therefore, it is apparent that the merits of the issues raised in the motion to vacate were never considered by this court; hence, the per curiam affirmance of the final judgment does not bar the trial court’s consideration of the motion to vacate.
Reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
POLEN, C.J., STONE, J., and MARRA, KENNETH A., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bloco, Inc. v. Porterfield OIL Co., Inc., 990 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…rd before us, our [*581] earlier affirmance did not establish the law of the case. The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually considered and decided in a prior appeal involving the same case. Analyte Diagnostics, Inc. v. D’Angelo, 792 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (citing Two M Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)). The doctrine requires that questions of law actually decided on appeal must govern the case in the same court and in the trial court through all subsequ…1 / 2
-
McCray v. State, 230 So. 3d 495 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…The law of the case doctrine applies only to issues actually considered and decided in a prior appeal involving the same case.” Bloco, Inc. v. Porterfield Oil Co., 990 So. 2d 578, 581 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Analyte Diagnostics, Inc. v. D’Angelo, 792 So. 2d 1271, 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)). Stated differently, the scope of the [*499] law of the case is “limited to rulings on questions of law actually presented and considered on a former appeal.” U.S. Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bould, 487 So. 2d 1061, 1068 (Fla. 19…
-
Nat'l City Bank v. Accent Mktg. Assocs., LLC, 82 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ur holding was expressly limited to the issue of excusable [*1064] neglect. Nothing in Bequer I precluded the court from considering the due process issue on remand. Law of the case had no application here. See Analyte Diagnostics, Inc. v. D’Angelo, 792 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (similar facts). On remand the trial court should consider whether the Bequers’ third-party complaint involves unliquidated damages; if it does, then the final judgment, but not the default, should be set aside and the case shou…
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
- Tomazin v. Gessner, 153 Fla. 501 (Fla. 1943)
- State v. Meneses, 392 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 1981)
- Glatstein v. The City OF Miami, 391 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- TWO M Dev. Corp. v. Mikos, 578 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- State v. Nieman, 292 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Hardwicke Cos. v. Freed, 292 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)