WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, ETC.
v.
NORMANDY SHORES APARTMENT CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.

Fla. 3d DCA | 2022-12-07
No. 22-0260
Scales, J., Lindsey, J., Bokor, J., Moore, J.
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2022)

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.

Synopsis

Wilmington Trust Company's successive Rule 1.540(b)(4) motion was properly denied because successive motions attempting to relitigate issues already adjudicated by prior post-judgment orders are not cognizable.

Holding

A successive Rule 1.540(b)(4) motion is not cognizable if it attempts to relitigate an issue already adjudicated by a prior post-judgment order.

Headnotes

[1] A successive Rule 1.540(b)(4) motion is not cognizable when it attempts to relitigate an issue already adjudicated by a prior post-judgment order; the proper remedy for d…

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
Facts & Procedural History

Wilmington Trust Company filed a successive Rule 1.540(b)(4) motion in a Miami-Dade County court case, which the trial court denied.…

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.

Topics
Post-Judgment Motions Successive Motions Res Judicata

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Post-Judgment Motions cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Wilmington Trust Company1 seeks review of a January 6, 2022 order denying what the trial court correctly characterized as appellant’s successive Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) motion. We affirm because a successive rule 1.540(b)(4) motion is not cognizable by the trial court if the successive motion attempts to relitigate an issue adjudicated by a prior post-judgment order. See Parkhomchuck v. AIY, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[I]f the appellants were dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling on their first rule 1.540(b) motion, ‘their remedy was by appeal, not be [sic] filing successive motions to vacate containing the same general grounds or even new ones, which could have been raised in the first motion.’” (quoting Intercoastal Marina Towers, Inc. v. Suburban Bank, 506 So. 2d 1177, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987))). 2 Affirmed.

2

Footnotes
1 As Successor to the Bank of New York Mellon, as Successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as Trustee for C-Bass Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-CB3. 2 Because a successive rule 1.540(b)(4) motion is not cognizable, the trial court could have stricken, rather than denied, appellant’s successive motion. We do not, in this opinion, determine which adjudication method is the better practice.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw