CESAR BALBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
LEXINGTON INSURANCE CO., 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.
Cesar Balbin appealed the denial of his third and fourth amended motions for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) against Lexington Insurance Co. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, finding the motions untimely and improper as an attempt to relitigate summary judgment issues that should have been pursued by direct appeal.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amended motions because the motions were untimely filed and improperly attempted to use rule 1.540 relief as a substitute for direct appeal of the summary judgment.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment may not be used as a substitute for a direct appeal.
[2] A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b).
Previewing 2 of 5 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 motion for relief from judgment may not be used as a substitute for appeal.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that rule 1.540 motions cannot circumvent the appellate process for challenging judgments 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 predecessor judge heard Balbin's original rule 1.540 motion and denied it with leave to amend, directing him to file the amended motion within 314 d…
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 Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540(B) Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cesar Balbin appeals an order denying his third and fourth amended motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We affirm.
First, a predecessor judge heard Balbin’s original rule 1.540 motion and de nied it with leave to amend. The transcript reflects that the predecessor judge directed Balbin to file the amended motion, and have it heard, within 314 days (which was the date on which the predecessor judge would retire from the bench). Balbin failed to comply with this directive and did not file his amended motion until after the predecessor judge had retired. The amended motion was therefore untimely filed.
Second, the matters raised in the rule 1.540 motion inhered in the summary judgment proceedings in the earlier litigation between the insured, Balbin, and the insurer, Lexington Insurance Co. The trial court accurately stated that the third and fourth amended motions for relief from judgment “are merely an attempt to have a rehearing of the evidence presented in both LEXINGTON’S Motion for Summary [Judgment] and that which was argued at the Hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment[.]”
A trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to grant relief from judgment. Kroner v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., 814 So. 2d 454, 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). We concur with the trial court that the issues raised in the third and fourth amended motions for relief from judgment should have been pursued by direct appeal. A motion for relief from judgment may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In Troiano v. Tizon, 632 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), this Court stated:
[A] denial ... of a motion to vacate a final judgment cannot bring up for review the merits of the final judgment sought to be vacated. The inquiry must be confined to determining whether in ruling on the motion the trial court abused its discretion on the facts and circumstances asserted in the motion’s behalf.
Id. at 252 (internal quotation marks omitted).
For these reasons, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amended motions for relief from judgment.
Affirmed.*
*
We need not reach. Lexington's argument that the original rule 1.540 motion was untimely as well.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Knowlan Dawson v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 61 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)…nt’s terms. Consequently, at issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly denied the motion to vacate the judgment and vacate the sale of the property. The standard of review is abuse of discretion. Balbin v. [*1221] Lexington Ins. Co., 982 So. 2d 10, 11 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Phenion Dev. Group, Inc. v. Love, 940 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). The trial court clearly did not abuse its discretion in this case. Under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), relief from judgment is only ava…
Authorities Cited
- Burt Kroner v. Singer Asset Fin. Co., L.L.C., 814 So. 2d 454 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Troiano v. Tizon, 632 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)