JJD REALTY, LLC
v.
ARTESA HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC.
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.
A nunc pro tunc order cannot be used to enter an order on a motion that was never previously ruled upon by the court.
[1] A nunc pro tunc order cannot be used to enter an order on a motion that received no prior ruling from the court, as such orders are limited to correcting the record of or…
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“A nunc pro tunc order may be used to correct the record of an order actually made, but perhaps entered 'incorrectly in the court records or not entered at all.'”
Court explaining the proper scope and limitation of nunc pro tunc orders
JJD Realty bid on property during a foreclosure sale and filed a motion on January 7, 2019, requesting the clerk of court issue a certificate of title…
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 Correction Of Court Records cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cymonie Rowe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502018CA007494XXXXMB.
Scott C. Gherman of Scott C. Gherman, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellant. No appearance for appellees. PER CURIAM. JJD Realty, LLC appeals the circuit court’s nunc pro tunc order directing the clerk of court to issue a certificate of title for property JJD Realty bid on during a foreclosure sale. JJD Realty argues the court erred in entering the order nunc pro tunc. We agree.
“A nunc pro tunc order may be used to correct the record of an order actually made, but perhaps entered ‘incorrectly in the court records or not entered at all.’” Rodriguez v. Palm Beach Cty. Div. of Animal Care & Control, 988 So. 2d 738, 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (emphasis removed) (quoting In re Riha’s Estate, 369 So. 2d 404, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)). While a nunc pro tunc order can correct the record to reflect actions previously taken, see Applestein v. Alberring, 291 So. 2d 206, 207 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), it cannot be used to enter an order that was “wholly” omitted or to change an existing order, In re Riha’s Estate, 369 So. 2d at 404 (citation omitted).
A careful review of the record does not show any action by the court on the pending motion to issue certificate of title, filed on January 7, 2019, until the nunc pro tunc order was entered on October 23, 2019. So, like
2
in Rodriguez where “no ruling had been made on the motion . . . filed almost one year before entry of the nunc pro tunc order,” see 988 So. 2d at 739 (emphasis removed), the court’s nunc pro tunc order in this case was not permissible and must be reversed. Reversed and remanded. GROSS, MAY and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re the Est. of James Riha v. Harding, 369 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979)
- Applestein v. Alberring, 291 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Domingo Rodriguez, Jr. v. Palm Beach Cnty. Div. of Animal Care & Control, 988 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)