SYLVIA MORROW
v.
SF MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES, 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 Rule 1.540 motion cannot be used to challenge the merits of an underlying judgment and is not a substitute for direct appeal or other proper remedies for judicial error.
[1] A motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 is not an appropriate vehicle for challenging the merits of a final judgment and may not be used to substitute for di…
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“Rule 1.540 was not intended as a substitute for relief from judicial error, 'such as a mistaken view of the law,' that should have been corrected by direct appeal or by motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530”
Court's explanation of the proper scope and limitations of Rule 1.540 motions
Sylvia Morrow appealed a circuit court judgment in Miami-Dade County against SF Materials and Supplies, Inc., apparently raising issues related to fac…
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 Factual Issues cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed November 29, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0316 Lower Tribunal No. 21-14064
________________
Sylvia Morrow,
Appellant,
vs.
SF Materials and Supplies, Inc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge. William D. Beamer, Chartered, and William D. Beamer (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant. Malka & Kravitz, P.A., and Erik C. Neudorff (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee. Before EMAS, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”) See also Parkhomchuck v. AIY, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (observing that “a rule 1.540 motion is not an appropriate means of challenging the merits of the underlying judgment” (citing Phenion Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Love, 940 So. 2d 1179, 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Rule 1.540 was not intended as a substitute for relief from judicial error, ‘such as a mistaken view of the law,’ that should have been corrected by direct appeal or by motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530”) and Averbuch v. Lauffer, 516 So. 2d 973, 974 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“[A] denial (or granting) of a motion to vacate a final judgment cannot on appeal bring up for review the merits of the final judgment sought to be vacated”)) (additional citations and quotations omitted); Smiles v. Young, 271 So. 2d 798, 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973) (Rule 1.540(b) “does not have as its purpose or intent the reopening of lawsuits to allow parties to state new claims or offer new evidence omitted by oversight or inadvertence. Nor does the rule allow a party to avoid the consequences of a decision to settle litigation even if the party regards the settlement as ‘bad’ in retrospect.”) (internal citations omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Morrow v. SF Materials & Supplies, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…ported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”) See also Parkhomchuck v. AIY, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397, 398 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (observing that “a rule 1.540 motion is not an appropriate means of challenging the merits of the underlying judgment” (citing Phenion Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Love, 940 So. 2d 1179, 1183 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (“Rule 1.540 was no…
-
Chamberlain v. Degner, 368 So. 3d 1039 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023)…satisfy the “in controversy” and “good cause” prongs supporting a psychological examination in a family law case). “[A] rule 1.540 motion is not an appropriate means of challenging the merits of the underlying judgment.” Parkhomchuck v. AIY, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022). The rule does not replace a motion for rehearing or direct appeal. Gjokhila, 349 So. 3d at 499; see also Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. Grimaldi, 107 So. 3d 1149, 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (reaffirming that a trial court is “not em…
-
Baroff v. Baroff, 349 So. 3d 451 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…counts’ valuation date. We dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction, that portion of the appeal challenging the December 30, 2021 order denying the husband’s first rule 12.540(b) motion, as untimely. As our sister court held in Parkhomchuck v. AIY, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022): [W]e lack appellate jurisdiction to review the [circuit court’s] order[] denying the appellants’ first rule 1.540 motion because the notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of the orders’ rendition. See Fla. R. App.…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smiles v. Young, 271 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)
- Phenion Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Love, 940 So. 2d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Morrow v. SF Materials & Supplies, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Averbuch v. Lauffer, 516 So. 2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)