Harris v. Anne Bates Leach Eye Institute

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Harris v. Anne Bates Leach Eye Institute

206 So. 3d 800, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16676

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 9, 2016

DocketNo. 3D16-257

StatusPublished

This text of 206 So. 3d 800 (Harris v. Anne Bates Leach Eye Institute) 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

Harris v. Anne Bates Leach Eye Institute, 206 So. 3d 800, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16676 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

James S. Harris (“Harris”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate the trial court’s earlier order rendered on August 29, 2012, dismissing his medical malpractice complaint with prejudice. Because it is clear that Harris’s motion was untimely filed, we affirm.

Harris contends that he did not initially receive the order of dismissal when it was rendered in August 2012. However, by his [801]*801own admission, he was aware of the order and had a copy of the order in his possession as of February 23, 2014. Thus, because his rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate was filed more than one year after receiving a copy of the trial court’s order of dismissal, the motion was untimely filed. See Owen v. State, 483 So.2d 453, 454-55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Harris’s motion to vacate.

Affirmed.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

James S. Harris (“Harris”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate the trial court’s earlier order rendered on August 29, 2012, dismissing his medical malpractice complaint with prejudice. Because it is clear that Harris’s motion was untimely filed, we affirm.

Harris contends that he did not initially receive the order of dismissal when it was rendered in August 2012. However, by his [801]*801own admission, he was aware of the order and had a copy of the order in his possession as of February 23, 2014. Thus, because his rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate was filed more than one year after receiving a copy of the trial court’s order of dismissal, the motion was untimely filed. See Owen v. State, 483 So.2d 453, 454-55 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Harris’s motion to vacate.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 So. 3d 800, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 16676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-anne-bates-leach-eye-institute-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack