Hollingsworth v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollingsworth v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.

170 So. 3d 810, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 569, 2015 WL 304036

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 20, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-0607

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 170 So. 3d 810 (Hollingsworth v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.) 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

Hollingsworth v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 170 So. 3d 810, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 569, 2015 WL 304036 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(l)-(3) on grounds the motion was untimely. See NAFH Nat’l Bank v. Aristizabal, 117 So.3d 900, 901-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding motion to vacate final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(2) and (3), on grounds bank committed fraud, “was untimely because the appellees filed it ‘more than 1 year’ after the ... final judgment”); Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 95 So.3d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding motion to vacate judgment on grounds bank misrepresented ownership of note and mortgage at the time of filing suit was untimely when “[t]he Dages waited more than two years after the entry of the final judgment before moving to vacate the default and judgment”).

The trial court also properly rejected the contention that relief was available pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(5).- See Pure H20 Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 937 So.2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Rule 1.540(b)(5) “requires the movant to establish that significant new evidence or substantial changes in circumstances arising after the entry of the judgment make it ‘no longer equitable’ for the trial court to enforce its earlier order.” (citation omitted; emphasis omitted)).

Affirmed.

WOLF, BENTON, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the denial of relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(l)-(3) on grounds the motion was untimely. See NAFH Nat’l Bank v. Aristizabal, 117 So.3d 900, 901-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding motion to vacate final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(2) and (3), on grounds bank committed fraud, “was untimely because the appellees filed it ‘more than 1 year’ after the ... final judgment”); Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 95 So.3d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding motion to vacate judgment on grounds bank misrepresented ownership of note and mortgage at the time of filing suit was untimely when “[t]he Dages waited more than two years after the entry of the final judgment before moving to vacate the default and judgment”).

The trial court also properly rejected the contention that relief was available pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(5).- See Pure H20 Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 937 So.2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Rule 1.540(b)(5) “requires the movant to establish that significant new evidence or substantial changes in circumstances arising after the entry of the judgment make it ‘no longer equitable’ for the trial court to enforce its earlier order.” (citation omitted; emphasis omitted)).

Affirmed.

WOLF, BENTON, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 So. 3d 810, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 569, 2015 WL 304036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollingsworth-v-deutsche-bank-national-trust-co-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack