JAMES C. PELEKIS ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
FLORIDA KEYS BOYS CLUB ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Appellants challenged the denial of their motion to vacate a final judgment in a title quieting action, claiming the judgment was procured by fraud. The court reversed and remanded, holding that parties alleging fraud in procuring judgment must be given a full opportunity to discover and present all available facts, including depositions and handwriting exemplars.
The court held that appellants erred in refusing to permit depositions and handwriting exemplars. When a party alleges fraud in procuring judgment, that serious charge requires a complete explanation of the circumstances and merits a full opportunity to present all available facts to the court. Therefore, the order denying the motion to vacate was reversed.
[1] A motion to vacate a final judgment based on fraud requires a full opportunity to present all available facts.
[2] A court errs in denying a motion to vacate a judgment procured by fraud when it refuses to permit necessary discovery.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“The basis of appellants' motion to vacate is that the final judgment was procured by fraud, a serious charge which requires a complete explanation of the circumstances of the alleged wrong and, therefore, merits a full opportunity to present all the available facts to the court.”
Establishes the legal standard that fraud allegations require full opportunity for discovery and presentation of all available facts
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff-appellee brought an action to quiet title to certain parcels of land. Defendant-appellants filed a counterclaim alleging the deed was false,…
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 To Vacate Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Defendant-appellants seek review of the denial of their motion to vacate final judgment pursuant to RCP 1.540(b).
Appellee, plaintiff in the circuit court, originally brought an action against the appellants to quiet title to certain parcels of land. Defendant-appellants filed a counterclaim and alleged therein that the deed was false and fraudulent and was forged by some unknown person. The chancellor found against the appellants on their counterclaim and title was quieted in the plaintiff-appellee. Approximately one year later, defendant-appellants filed a motion to vacate final judgment on the ground that the final judgment was procured by fraud and the movant had newly discovered evidence thereof, to wit: that the warranty deed to plaintiff-appellee actually was two separate instruments which had been taped together and that the signatures of the two witnesses to the signature of appellant Pe-lekis probably were made by the same individual. Appellants attempted to take the depositions of J. Bruce Vining (the principal of plaintiff-appellee) and Doreen Skinner, the notary public who notarized the warranty deed. However, the chancellor ruled that these individuals need not be deposed. In addition, appellants also requested that Mr. Vining and Ms. Skinner produce documents containing at least 50 separate examples of their handwriting. This request was denied by the court. After a hearing on the motion to vacate final judgment, the chancellor entered his order of denial. This interlocutory appeal followed.
Defendant-appellants contend that the court erred in refusing to require J. Bruce Vining and Doreen Skinner to submit to a deposition and to produce examples of their handwriting and, therefore, erred in denying the motion to vacate based upon the evidence presented to the court. We agree.
The basis of appellants’ motion to vacate is that the final judgment was procured by fraud, a serious charge which requires a complete explanation of the circumstances of the alleged wrong and, therefore, merits a full opportunity to present all the available facts to the court. See Seven-Up Bot tling Company of Miami, Inc. v. George Construction Corp., Fla.App. 1964, 166 So. 2d 155.
Accordingly, the order herein appealed is reversed and the cause remanded to the court below to permit full discovery and thereafter to conduct a new evidentiary hearing on appellants’ motion to vacate.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…lorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required. Rosenthal v. Ford, 443 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pelekis v. Florida Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So. 2d 751 (Fla.1975); Stella v. Stella, 418 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). We have examined Southern Bell’s arguments and the record on the issue of excessiveness of the damage award, and conclude that rever…
-
Pelekis v. Fla. Keys Boys Club, Inc., 358 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…d to compel them to produce exemplars of their handwriting for analysis. This court reversed and remanded the case to permit full discovery and in order to conduct a new evidentiary hearing on the motion to vacate. Pelekis v. Florida Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Upon remand, the trial court entered an order requiring Vining to make available for examination copies of his handwriting. An interlocutory appeal was taken from this order concerning the scope of discovery. This court treated…
-
Cherie Wheaton Hinson v. Kristopher B. Hinson, 985 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…without an evidentiary hearing. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); see also Gostyla v. Gostyla, 708 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Crowley v. Crowley, 678 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Pelekis v. Fla. Keys Boys Club, 302 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); cf. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (holding evidentiary hearing not required because motion did not allege fraud with sufficient specificity). Here, the former wife properly pleaded specific allegat…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Seven-Up Bottling Co. OF Miami, Inc. v. George Constr. Corp., 166 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gentile v. Austin, 166 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)