Gale v. Blake

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gale v. Blake

745 So. 2d 518, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15666, 1999 WL 1062622

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 24, 1999

DocketNos. 99-809, 99-808

StatusPublished

This text of 745 So. 2d 518 (Gale v. Blake) 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

Gale v. Blake, 745 So. 2d 518, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15666, 1999 WL 1062622 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In case number 99-809, we reverse the order under review insofar as it grants Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 relief by vacating previous awards of attorney’s fees in a domestic action. In our judgment, the rule was improperly employed as a substitute for a timely appeal to correct a mistaken view of the law, which, without any affirmative impropriety by anyone, was shared by both parties and the court. Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443 (Fla.1990); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Harrison v. La [519]*519Placida Community Ass’n, 665 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Metropolitan Dade County v. Certain Lands upon which Assessments are Delinquent, 471 So.2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

In case number 99-808, however, we find no error in those aspects of the order below which denied the 1.540 motion. Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded with directions to deny the 1.540 motion in its entirety.

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

PER CURIAM.

In case number 99-809, we reverse the order under review insofar as it grants Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 relief by vacating previous awards of attorney’s fees in a domestic action. In our judgment, the rule was improperly employed as a substitute for a timely appeal to correct a mistaken view of the law, which, without any affirmative impropriety by anyone, was shared by both parties and the court. Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443 (Fla.1990); Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So.2d 622 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Harrison v. La [519]*519Placida Community Ass’n, 665 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Metropolitan Dade County v. Certain Lands upon which Assessments are Delinquent, 471 So.2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

In case number 99-808, however, we find no error in those aspects of the order below which denied the 1.540 motion. Accordingly, the order is affirmed in part and reversed in part and the cause is remanded with directions to deny the 1.540 motion in its entirety.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 So. 2d 518, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 15666, 1999 WL 1062622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gale-v-blake-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack