ARNE SOREIDE, APPELLANT,
v.
VANTREX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 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.
Arne Soreide appeals a final judgment entered in favor of Vantrex Communications after a nonjury trial on supplementary proceedings. The court reverses and remands for a new trial due to the trial court's procedural error in setting aside the original final judgment outside the ten-day correction period.
The trial court lacked authority to set aside the original final judgment and enter the amended judgment outside the ten-day correction period. When an error is judicial rather than clerical and affects the substance of a judgment, correction must occur within ten days pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 or be addressed on appeal.
[1] A trial court may correct a clerical error in a judgment at any time on its own initiative.
[2] A judicial error affecting the substance of a judgment must be corrected by the trial court within ten days of its entry or through appellate review.
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“a trial court may correct a clerical error at any time on its own initiative pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a). However, when the error is not clerical but rather is a judicial error which affects the substance of a judgment, as in the present case, it must be corrected within ten days after entry of the judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 or by appellate review.”
Establishes the distinction between clerical and judicial errors and the time limitations for correcting each type
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a nonjury trial on January 22, 2004, regarding proceedings supplementary to execution filed by Vantrex against Soreide, the trial court requeste…
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 Clerical Error Correction cases and more on FLexlaw
SALCINES, Judge.
Arne Soreide appeals the February 18, 2004, amended final judgment entered in favor of Vantrex Communications, Inc. Due to the procedural error that occurred when the trial court entered conflicting final judgments, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
On January 22, 2004, a nonjury trial was conducted on proceedings supplementary to execution which had been filed by Van-trex against Mr. Soreide. At the conclusion of the trial, the attorneys for the parties were directed to submit proposed final judgments for the trial court’s consideration. On February 2, 2004, the proposed final judgment prepared by Mr. So-reide’s attorney was submitted to the court. The judgment which ruled in Mr. Soreide’s favor was signed by the trial court and filed with the clerk on the day it was received. The attorney for Vantrex submitted its proposed judgment on February 5, 2004. Thereafter, in an order rendered February 18, 2004, the trial court sua sponte set aside the February 2, 2004, final judgment, stating that the proposed final judgment submitted by Mr. Soreide “was signed in error.” An amended final judgment was rendered in favor of Van-trex on February 18, 2004, nunc pro tunc, February 2, 2004. Mr. Soreide argues and Vantrex concedes that the trial court erred when it sua sponte set aside the original final judgment and entered the amended final judgment more than ten days after the entry of the original final judgment.
This matter is governed by Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001), in which this court noted that a trial court may correct a clerical error at any time on its own initiative pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a). However, when the error is not clerical but rather is a judicial error which affects the substance of a judgment, as in the present case, it must be corrected within ten days after entry of the judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 or by appellate review. The February 18, 2004, order was rendered outside the ten-day window in which the trial court could correct the judicial error. Given the' nature of the error in the present case, we vacate both final judgments and remand this matter for a new trial. See Bolton, 787 So. 2d at 238.
Reversed and remanded for new trial.
FULMER and WALLACE, JJ., concur.