Engstrom v. Engstrom

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Engstrom v. Engstrom

258 So. 3d 507

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 12, 2018

DocketNo. 3D17-1243

StatusPublished

This text of 258 So. 3d 507 (Engstrom v. Engstrom) 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

Engstrom v. Engstrom, 258 So. 3d 507 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, C.J.

Kimberley Engstrom ("former wife") appeals from: (1) an order granting Kenneth Engstrom's ("former husband") motion for summary judgment on the former wife's "Corrected Supplemental Amended Rule 12.540 Petition for Relief From Judgment for Fraud on Financial Affidavit" and granting the former husband's motion for attorney's fees and costs; (2) an order denying *508the former wife's motion for rehearing; and (3) a "Final Summary Judgment Denying Former Wife's Corrected Supplemental Amended Rule 12.540 Petition for Relief from Judgment for Fraud on Financial Affidavit and Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs." Because the former wife's rule 12.540 petition sets forth a proper claim for relief from judgment based on a fraudulent affidavit submitted to the trial court in a marital case¹ and there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the former husband's affidavit was in fact fraudulent and whether the former wife relied on the draft of the allegedly fraudulent affidavit when she entered into the marital settlement agreement, which was allegedly materially similar to the affidavit the husband executed and submitted to the trial court, we reverse the orders under review and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the former wife's rule 12.540 petition. See Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) ("Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.").

Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

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

ROTHENBERG, C.J.

Kimberley Engstrom ("former wife") appeals from: (1) an order granting Kenneth Engstrom's ("former husband") motion for summary judgment on the former wife's "Corrected Supplemental Amended Rule 12.540 Petition for Relief From Judgment for Fraud on Financial Affidavit" and granting the former husband's motion for attorney's fees and costs; (2) an order denying *508the former wife's motion for rehearing; and (3) a "Final Summary Judgment Denying Former Wife's Corrected Supplemental Amended Rule 12.540 Petition for Relief from Judgment for Fraud on Financial Affidavit and Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs." Because the former wife's rule 12.540 petition sets forth a proper claim for relief from judgment based on a fraudulent affidavit submitted to the trial court in a marital case¹ and there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the former husband's affidavit was in fact fraudulent and whether the former wife relied on the draft of the allegedly fraudulent affidavit when she entered into the marital settlement agreement, which was allegedly materially similar to the affidavit the husband executed and submitted to the trial court, we reverse the orders under review and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the former wife's rule 12.540 petition. See Volusia Cty. v. Aberdeen at Ormond Beach, L.P., 760 So.2d 126, 130 (Fla. 2000) ("Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.").

Reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 So. 3d 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/engstrom-v-engstrom-fladistctapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack