ARDC-Hospitality Management, Inc. v. Randell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ARDC-Hospitality Management, Inc. v. Randell

620 So. 2d 254, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6660, 1993 WL 217139

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 23, 1993

DocketNo. 92-3234

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 620 So. 2d 254 (ARDC-Hospitality Management, Inc. v. Randell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ARDC-Hospitality Management, Inc. v. Randell, 620 So. 2d 254, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6660, 1993 WL 217139 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order vacating an earlier final summary judgment. The order was entered in response to a motion filed pursuant to rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicable subsection of the rule has not been specified. The ostensible reason for entry of the order is that one of the original defendants was unintentionally omitted from the final summary judgment. There is no evidentiary support in the record for that proposition. It rests, instead, on the argument of counsel and the recollection of the trial court judge. That is an insufficient basis for vacating an otherwise final judgment. Lee v. Chung, 528 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Even if there had been a sufficient evidentiary showing, however, the more appropriate remedy would have been to add the unintentionally omitted party by an order nunc pro tunc the final judgment, rather than vacating that final judgment and disturbing vested interests.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order vacating an earlier final summary judgment. The order was entered in response to a motion filed pursuant to rule 1.540, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The applicable subsection of the rule has not been specified. The ostensible reason for entry of the order is that one of the original defendants was unintentionally omitted from the final summary judgment. There is no evidentiary support in the record for that proposition. It rests, instead, on the argument of counsel and the recollection of the trial court judge. That is an insufficient basis for vacating an otherwise final judgment. Lee v. Chung, 528 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Even if there had been a sufficient evidentiary showing, however, the more appropriate remedy would have been to add the unintentionally omitted party by an order nunc pro tunc the final judgment, rather than vacating that final judgment and disturbing vested interests.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

620 So. 2d 254, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 6660, 1993 WL 217139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ardc-hospitality-management-inc-v-randell-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack