Henry v. Henry

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Henry v. Henry

39 So. 3d 557, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10561, 2010 WL 2836258

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 21, 2010

Docket2D09-53

StatusPublished

This text of 39 So. 3d 557 (Henry v. Henry) 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

Henry v. Henry, 39 So. 3d 557, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10561, 2010 WL 2836258 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

KELLY, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, U. Samuel Henry (the Husband) challenges the order denying his motion for rehearing or alternatively for relief from judgment. Because we conclude that the Husband alleged sufficient facts to show a colorable claim for relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the Husband’s motion. See Smith v. Smith, 9083 So.2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“A motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief.”) (quoting In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). See also Jerue v. Holladay, 945 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court erred in denying motion for relief from judgment where proper showing of excusable neglect and a demonstration that a meritorious defense could have been asserted).

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.

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

KELLY, Judge.

In this appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, U. Samuel Henry (the Husband) challenges the order denying his motion for rehearing or alternatively for relief from judgment. Because we conclude that the Husband alleged sufficient facts to show a colorable claim for relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the Husband’s motion. See Smith v. Smith, 9083 So.2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“A motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief.”) (quoting In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)). See also Jerue v. Holladay, 945 So.2d 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (holding that the trial court erred in denying motion for relief from judgment where proper showing of excusable neglect and a demonstration that a meritorious defense could have been asserted).

Reversed and remanded.

CASANUEVA, C.J., and ALTENBERND, J., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 So. 3d 557, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 10561, 2010 WL 2836258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-v-henry-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack