FREDDIE LOUIS MUNGEN, APPELLANT,
v.
MAURICE CARWISE, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, ETC., 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.
Freddie Louis Mungen appealed the denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) following a final judgment that voided his conveyance of land. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding no abuse of discretion and no newly discovered evidence or mistake sufficient to justify relief.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for relief from judgment. The trial court's conclusion that there was no newly discovered evidence or any mistake sufficient to justify setting aside the final judgment is substantiated by the record.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant relief from a judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).
[2] Orders of the trial court on motions for relief from judgment are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
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“A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant relief from a judgment.”
Establishes the standard of review and the scope of trial court authority in 1.540(b) motions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaurice Carwise, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Frazier, Jr., sued Mungen to set aside a conveyance of land by the deceased Frazie…
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, Misrepresentation, Or Other Misconduct cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Freddie Louis Mungen appeals the denial of his motion for relief from judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We affirm.
Mungen, the defendant below, was sued by Maurice Carwise, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Frazier, Jr., in an action seeking to set aside the conveyance of land by the deceased Frazier to Mungen. Mungen did not appeal the final judgment that concluded the conveyance was void, but instead, filed a motion for relief from judgment under rule 1.540(b).1
A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant relief from a judgment. Kroner v. Singer Asset Finance Co., L.L.C., 814 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We review orders of the trial court on such motions for abuse of discretion. Bakalarz v. Luskin, 560 So. 2d 283, 285 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Having carefully reviewed the record in its entirety, we find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion. The trial court’s conclusion that there was no newly discovered evidence or any mistake sufficient to justify setting aside the final judgment is substantiated by the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order. AFFIRMED.
PLEUS, C.J., GRIFFIN and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) states in pertinent part:
(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application. The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Burt Kroner v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., L.L.C., 814 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Bakalarz v. Luskin, 560 So. 2d 283 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)