AQUA LIFE CORP., PETITIONER,
v.
HUMBERTO REYES, RESPONDENT
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.
Aqua Life Corp. petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent a trial court from exercising jurisdiction after it vacated a final dismissal order for lack of prosecution without authority to do so. The court granted the petition, holding that once the time period for filing a motion for rehearing expired, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the dismissal absent compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to vacate the final dismissal order because Respondent failed to file any motion seeking to vacate the judgment or any motion under Rule 1.540(b), and the trial court's order contained no requisite findings to support such relief. Once the time period for filing a written motion for rehearing expires, a trial court may only vacate a final judgment on the narrow grounds specified in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment after the time for filing a motion for rehearing has expired, absent grounds for vacating a final judgment und…
[2] An order dismissing an action for lack of prosecution is a final judgment for purposes of appeal.
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“Florida law is clear that once the time period for filing a written motion for rehearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 has expired, the trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment unless it is based upon "any of the narrow grounds for vacating a final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540."”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that a trial court's jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment is limited to the grounds specified in Rule 1.540 after the rehearing period expires.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court dismissed a case for lack of prosecution on February 1, 2013, and this dismissal order was never appealed. More than eighteen months lat…
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 1.530 cases and more on FLexlaw
ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Upon Respondent’s motion for rehearing, we withdraw our previously-issued opinion and substitute the following opinion in its stead.
Petitioner, Aqua Life Corp. (“Petitioner”), petitions this court for issuance of a writ of prohibition to prohibit the trial court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the cause below, which was dismissed by order of the trial court pursuant to a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The record reflects that the February 1, 2013 order of dismissal was never appealed.1
More than eighteen months later, on October 10, 2014, the plaintiff below, Humberto Reyes (“Respondent”) filed a motion for status conference. There appears to be some dispute over whether Petitioner was served with this motion or the notice of hearing. However, it is undisputed that Petitioner did not appear at the hearing on the motion for status conference held October 27, 2014. It is also undisputed that, following the hearing, the trial court entered orders vacating the February 1,2013 dismissal order; setting the case for trial; and referring the parties to mediation.2
Florida law is clear that once the time period for filing a written motion for rehearing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530 has expired, the trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment unless it is based upon “any of the narrow grounds for vacating a final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.” Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So.2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In the instant case, Respondent failed to file any motion seeking to vacate the judgment. Nor did he file any motion setting forth allegations that would entitle him to relief under rule 1.540(b). Further, the trial court’s order vacating the February 1, 2013 dismissal order fails to contain any of the requisite findings to support the granting of such relief. Therefore, the trial court’s order vacating the dismissal, as well as all orders entered subsequent thereto,3 must be quashed as the trial *119court was without jurisdiction to enter those orders. See Pilz v. Pilz, 395 So.2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). See also Smith-Adam v. Komer, 673 So.2d 991, 992 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding that “[o]nce a judgment becomes final, it can only be modified by a proper independent action or by an authorized motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540.”).
We therefore grant the petition; quash the orders vacating the dismissal, setting the case for trial and referring the case to mediation; lift the stay; and remand this cause for any further proceedings consistent herewith.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Theodorides v. Theodorides, 201 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…ing a written motion for rehearing ... has expired, the trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate a final judgment unless it is based upon ‘any of the narrow grounds for vacating a final judgment under [Rule] 1.540.’”). Aqua Life Corp. v. Reyes, 160 So. 3d 117, 118 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (quoting Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So. 2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)). This case does not present one of those grounds. Mrs. Theodorides’ path to relief was either by motion for rehearing or appeal of the March 24, 201…
-
Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Tiffanie Hoffman o/b/o K.P. (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…of Civil Procedure 1.540. Prohibition is a proper remedy where, as here, a circuit court vacates a final order of dismissal without jurisdiction. Derma Lift Salon, Inc. v. Swanko, 419 So. 2d 1180, 1180 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Aqua Life Corp. v. Reyes, 160 So. 3d 117, 119 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). We therefore grant the petition for writ of prohibition and quash the order vacating the dismissal. Petition granted; order quashed. KLINGENSMITH, C.J., CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So. 2d 1318 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- Elwood J. Hunnewell, Jr. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 925 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Pilz v. Lenora Lynn Pilz, 395 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- BAY Park Towers Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Triple M. Roofing Corp., 55 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Elegele v. Halbert, 890 So. 2d 1272 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Louisa Smith-Adam v. Komer, 673 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)