JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nelida I. Kehle

District Court of Appeal of Florida

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nelida I. Kehle

179 So. 3d 563, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18026, 2015 WL 7752642

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 2, 2015

Docket4D14-1631

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 179 So. 3d 563 (JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nelida I. Kehle) 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

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Nelida I. Kehle, 179 So. 3d 563, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18026, 2015 WL 7752642 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for relief from final judgment, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Appellant requested relief from its notice of voluntary dismissal, which it alleged had been filed by mistake and without authorization. The trial court refused to hear the motion, believing it did not have jurisdiction. This was error. We reverse.

Rule 1.540(b)(1) allows a trial court to grant relief from “a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding” for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. A notice of voluntary dismissal is a “proceeding” within the meaning of rule 1.540. Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So.2d 1221, 1224 (Fla.1986) (holding that “the limited jurisdiction conferred on the courts by rule 1.540(b) to correct errors includes the power to correct clerical substantive errors in a voluntary notice of dismissal”).

Resolving a conflict, the Miller court agreed with this court’s conclusion “ ‘that Rule 1.540(b) may be used to afford relief to all litigants who can demonstrate the existence of the grounds set out under the rule.’ ” Miller, 484 So.2d at 1224 (quoting Shampaine Indus., Inc. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 411 So.2d 364, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)) (emphasis added by Miller). In Shampaine, this court affirmed an order granting rule 1.540 relief to a plaintiff that inadvertently had included the words “with prejudice” instead of “without prejudice” in its voluntary dismissal. 411 So.2d at 365; cf. Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So.3d 23 (Fla.2013) (reiterating that rule 1.540 may be used to relieve a party from *564 a voluntary dismissal, but not under the specific circumstances of the case).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

WARNER, TAYLOR and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, the plaintiff in a mortgage foreclosure action, appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for relief from final judgment, filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). Appellant requested relief from its notice of voluntary dismissal, which it alleged had been filed by mistake and without authorization. The trial court refused to hear the motion, believing it did not have jurisdiction. This was error. We reverse.

Rule 1.540(b)(1) allows a trial court to grant relief from “a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding” for reasons including mistake, inadvertence, and excusable neglect. A notice of voluntary dismissal is a “proceeding” within the meaning of rule 1.540. Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So.2d 1221, 1224 (Fla.1986) (holding that “the limited jurisdiction conferred on the courts by rule 1.540(b) to correct errors includes the power to correct clerical substantive errors in a voluntary notice of dismissal”).

Resolving a conflict, the Miller court agreed with this court’s conclusion “ ‘that Rule 1.540(b) may be used to afford relief to all litigants who can demonstrate the existence of the grounds set out under the rule.’ ” Miller, 484 So.2d at 1224 (quoting Shampaine Indus., Inc. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 411 So.2d 364, 368 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)) (emphasis added by Miller). In Shampaine, this court affirmed an order granting rule 1.540 relief to a plaintiff that inadvertently had included the words “with prejudice” instead of “without prejudice” in its voluntary dismissal. 411 So.2d at 365; cf. Pino v. Bank of New York, 121 So.3d 23 (Fla.2013) (reiterating that rule 1.540 may be used to relieve a party from *564 a voluntary dismissal, but not under the specific circumstances of the case).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

WARNER, TAYLOR and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

179 So. 3d 563, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 18026, 2015 WL 7752642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jp-morgan-chase-bank-na-v-nelida-i-kehle-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack