Jarvis v. Bracewell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jarvis v. Bracewell

121 So. 3d 1133, 2013 WL 4614723, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13973

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 30, 2013

DocketNo. 1D13-1250

StatusPublished

This text of 121 So. 3d 1133 (Jarvis v. Bracewell) 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

Jarvis v. Bracewell, 121 So. 3d 1133, 2013 WL 4614723, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13973 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon Respondents’ proper confession of error, we quash the order denying Petitioner’s “Motion for Belated Rehearing” as untimely. Although styled as a motion for rehearing, the body of the motion clearly and properly sought relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). See Patterson v. Crosby, 917 So.2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (explaining that rule 1.540(b) is the proper means for seeking relief from an order that was not furnished to a party until after the time for appeal had expired); Brown v. State, 708 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (same). The motion was timely under rule 1.540(b) and, thus, the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon Respondents’ proper confession of error, we quash the order denying Petitioner’s “Motion for Belated Rehearing” as untimely. Although styled as a motion for rehearing, the body of the motion clearly and properly sought relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). See Patterson v. Crosby, 917 So.2d 1033, 1034 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (explaining that rule 1.540(b) is the proper means for seeking relief from an order that was not furnished to a party until after the time for appeal had expired); Brown v. State, 708 So.2d 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (same). The motion was timely under rule 1.540(b) and, thus, the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion.

PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.

THOMAS, WETHERELL, and RAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 So. 3d 1133, 2013 WL 4614723, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jarvis-v-bracewell-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack