ENGSTROM
v.
ENGSTROM
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.
Kimberley Engstrom appeals from a summary judgment order dismissing her Rule 12.540 petition alleging fraud on a financial affidavit submitted by her former husband Kenneth Engstrom in a marital dissolution case. The court reverses, finding that the petition states a valid claim for relief from judgment and that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the affidavit was fraudulent and whether the former wife relied on it in entering the marital settlement agreement.
Summary judgment was improper because the former wife's Rule 12.540 petition sets forth a proper claim for relief from judgment based on a fraudulent affidavit in a marital case and genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether the affidavit was fraudulent and whether the former wife relied on the draft when entering the settlement agreement.
[1] In a marital case, a Rule 12.540 petition alleging fraud in a financial affidavit is not subject to dismissal by summary judgment when genuine issues of material fact exi…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a marital dissolution case, the former husband submitted a financial affidavit to the trial court. The former wife subsequently filed a Rule 12.540…
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 Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
ROTHENBERG, C.J.
Kimberley Engstrom (“former wife”) appeals from: (1) an order granting Kenneth Engstrom’s (“former husband”) motion for summary judgment on the former wife’s “Corrected Supplemental Amended Rule 12.540 Petition for Relief From Judgment for Fraud on Financial Affidavit” and granting the former husband’s motion for attorney’s fees and costs; (2) an order denying the former wife’s motion for rehearing; and (3) a “Final Summary Judgment Denying Former Wife’s Corrected Supplemental Amended Rule 12.540 Petition for Relief from Judgment for Fraud on Financial Affidavit and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.” Because the former wife’s rule 12.540 petition sets forth a proper claim for relief from judgment based on a fraudulent affidavit submitted to the trial court in a marital case1 and there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the former husband’s affidavit was in fact fraudulent and whether the former wife relied on the draft of the allegedly fraudulent affidavit when she entered into the marital settlement agreement, which was allegedly materially similar to the affidavit the husband executed and submitted to the trial court, we reverse the orders under review and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the former wife’s rule 12.540 petition. See Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 1 When the former wife filed her rule 12.540 petition, Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540 provided, in part, as follows: “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 shall govern general provision concerning relief from judgment, decrees, or orders, except: . . . there shall be no time limit for motions based on fraudulent financial affidavits in marital . . . cases[.]” See In re Amendments to Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure, 214 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2017).
So. 2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) (“Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”).
Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Volusia Cnty. v. Aberdeen AT Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So. 2d 126 (Fla. 2000)
- In re Amendments to Fla. Fam. Law Rules of Procedure, 214 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2017)