EVANS
v.
MURPHY
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.
George Evans appeals the trial court's summary denial of his 2015 motion for relief from a December 2013 order. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding the motion untimely, facially deficient, and barred by the law of the case doctrine after multiple prior appeals.
The court affirmed the trial court's summary denial of the motion. The amended motion was untimely, facially deficient, and barred by the law of the case doctrine, as the issues had been previously decided in prior appeals and could have been addressed when the original order was entered.
[1] The law of the case doctrine prevents reconsideration of issues that were necessarily decided in a prior appellate decision, and applies to subsequent motions for relief…
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 intelligence“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Court's statement of the law of the case doctrine, citing Suffolk Constr. Co. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc.
Evans, an attorney, was ordered to transfer $300,000 in settlement proceeds into his law firm trust account pending court order in a dissolution of ma…
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 Motion For Relief From Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 27, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-948 Lower Tribunal No. 04-13059 ________________ George Evans, Appellant, vs. Deirdre A. Murphy, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Monica Gordo, Judge. Lehtinen Schultz, PLLC, and Claudio Riedi, for appellant. Costello Law, LLC, and Joseph A. Costello (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and SALTER and MILLER, JJ. EMAS, C.J.
George Evans1 appeals the trial court’s order summarily denying his 2015 “Amended Motion for Relief from Order Dated December2, 2013.” The trial court denied the motion as untimely, “facially deficient and simply an attempt to re-litigate issues which were previously known and could have been addressed at the time the original order was entered.”
We agree, and further conclude that the amended motion was barred by law of the case. See Evans v. Murphy, 159 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Suffolk Constr. Co. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 63 So. 3d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“When an appellate court has decided a question of law, the decision of the court becomes 1 We note, by way of background, that the action below began as a dissolution of marriage case in which Evans represented the former husband. During the pendency of the dissolution proceedings, Evans’ client was ordered to transfer $300,000 (proceeds from a settlement of an unrelated civil suit) into Evans’ law firm trust account, pending further order of the court. Later, the trial court ordered that $180,000 of those proceeds be deposited into the court registry. Evans failed to do so. Evans later acknowledged at a hearing before the trial court that he transferred those funds from his trust account without the trial court’s authorization. Evans also failed to comply with the trial court’s order to produce his firm’s trust and bank records to account for the disbursement of those proceeds. Several hearings were held and orders entered relating to Evans’ improper disbursement of those funds and his failure to comply with the trial court’s orders. A more expansive description of the history of the case can be found in Murphy v. Evans, 96 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). Evans was eventually held in contempt, and was ordered to pay the former wife’s attorney’s fees and costs. Evans was suspended from the practice of law by emergency order of the Florida Supreme Court, and he later consented to a permanent disbarment following a referee’s determination that Evans, inter alia, wrongfully disbursed funds from his law firm trust account to satisfy personal and business obligations. See The Fla. Bar v. Evans, 77 So. 3d 647 (Fla. 2011) (table).
law of the case. This doctrine prevents reconsideration of all issues necessarily decided in the former appeal”).2 Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Suffolk Constr. Co., Inc. v. First Sealord Sur., Inc., 63 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Deirdre A. Murphy v. Evans, 96 So. 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)
- Evans v. Deidre Murphy, 159 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)