CHERIE WHEATON HINSON, APPELLANT,
v.
KRISTOPHER B. HINSON, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a final judgment on the pleadings granted to the former husband in a marital dissolution case. The trial court erred by applying the wrong procedural rule and denying the former wife an evidentiary hearing on her motion for relief from judgment based on alleged fraudulent financial affidavits.
The trial court committed two procedural errors: (1) Rule 1.140(c) does not apply when the parties file a motion for relief from judgment rather than pleadings, and (2) a motion for relief from judgment alleging colorable entitlement to relief, including specific fraud allegations, must receive an evidentiary hearing rather than being summarily dismissed.
[1] A motion for judgment on the pleadings is inapplicable when the parties have not filed pleadings.
[2] A motion for relief from judgment alleging colorable entitlement to relief should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.
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“Where a motion for relief from judgment alleges 'colorable entitlement to relief,' it should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.”
Establishes the legal standard that fraud allegations in relief from judgment motions require an evidentiary hearing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement, the former wife timely moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Family Rule o…
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 Colorable Entitlement To Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
GERSTEN, C.J.
Cherie Wheaton Hinson (“the former wife”) appeals a final judgment on the pleadings in favor of Kristopher B. Hinson (“the former husband”). We reverse.
After the parties entered into a marital settlement agreement, the former wife timely moved for relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Family Rule of Procedure 12.540. The former wife’s motion alleged that the former husband provided fraudulent financial affidavits. In response, the former husband moved for judgment on the pleadings under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140(c), claiming that the former wife could not establish justifiable reliance. The trial court, without any evidence, granted the former husband’s rule 1.140(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The trial court erred in two procedural missteps. The first misstep was granting the former husband’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The record reveals that the former wife filed a motion for relief from judgment, and the former husband filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Therefore, because the parties did not file pleadings, rule 1.140(c) does not apply.
The next misstep was foreclosing the former wife from presenting evidence on her rule 12.540 motion for relief from judgment. Where a motion for relief from judgment alleges “colorable entitlement to relief,” it should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Gostyla v. Gostyla, 708 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Pelekis v. Fla. Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding evidentiary hearing not required because motion did not allege fraud with sufficient specificity).
Here, the former wife properly pleaded specific allegations of fraud which constituted a “colorable entitlement to relief’ and entitled the former wife to an evidentiary hearing. Additionally, fraud allegations are ordinarily not suitable for summary disposition because determining fraud generally requires a full explanation of the facts and circumstances of the alleged wrong. Nessim v. DeLoache, 384 So. 2d 1341, 1344 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment on the pleadings, and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the former wifes motion for relief from judgment.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowe-Lewis v. Lewis, 267 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…A rule 1.540(b) motion “should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege a colorable entitlement to relief.” Coleman, 20 So. 3d at 954; accord Hinson v. Hinson, 985 So. 2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). “To warrant an evidentiary hearing, a Rule 1.540(b) motion must . . . plead fraud with particularity[] and . . . explain why the fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside.” Coleman, 2…
-
Sondra Hess v. Hess (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Flemenbaum v. Lily Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Salomon Kassin Nessim v. Mickey DeLOACHE, 384 So. 2d 1341 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In re Guardianship OF Theresa Marie Schiavo v. Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Pelekis v. Fla. Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Gostyla v. Gostyla, 708 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)