Arnem v. Jeri Mar-Tratt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Arnem v. Jeri Mar-Tratt

564 So. 2d 268, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5379, 1990 WL 102706

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 25, 1990

DocketNo. 89-2047

StatusPublished

This text of 564 So. 2d 268 (Arnem v. Jeri Mar-Tratt) 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

Arnem v. Jeri Mar-Tratt, 564 So. 2d 268, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5379, 1990 WL 102706 (Fla. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We agree with the appel-lee, Jeri Mar-Tratt, that once the appellant, Harold Van Arnem, withdrew his motion to vacate based upon a jurisdictional challenge and subsequently failed to object to the entry of a final judgment of garnishment, the trial court acted properly in subsequently rejecting a second motion to vacate filed over two (2) weeks later. Cf. Schneiderman v. Cantor, 546 So.2d 51 (Fla.4th DCA 1989). Under the unique circumstances of this case we believe appellant’s action in first filing and then withdrawing a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, and failing to object to the entry of judgment despite the opportunity to do so, constituted a submission to the court’s jurisdiction and a waiver of subsequently discovered defects. We reject appellant’s contention that a different result is mandated because appellant’s counsel chose not to actually attend the noticed hearing on his motion to vacate and the appellee’s motion for entry of judgment.

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER, JJ., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We agree with the appel-lee, Jeri Mar-Tratt, that once the appellant, Harold Van Arnem, withdrew his motion to vacate based upon a jurisdictional challenge and subsequently failed to object to the entry of a final judgment of garnishment, the trial court acted properly in subsequently rejecting a second motion to vacate filed over two (2) weeks later. Cf. Schneiderman v. Cantor, 546 So.2d 51 (Fla.4th DCA 1989). Under the unique circumstances of this case we believe appellant’s action in first filing and then withdrawing a challenge to the court’s jurisdiction, and failing to object to the entry of judgment despite the opportunity to do so, constituted a submission to the court’s jurisdiction and a waiver of subsequently discovered defects. We reject appellant’s contention that a different result is mandated because appellant’s counsel chose not to actually attend the noticed hearing on his motion to vacate and the appellee’s motion for entry of judgment.

ANSTEAD, GUNTHER, JJ., and FRANK, RICHARD H., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

564 So. 2d 268, 1990 Fla. App. LEXIS 5379, 1990 WL 102706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnem-v-jeri-mar-tratt-fladistctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack