Landau v. Lupowitz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Landau v. Lupowitz

723 So. 2d 851, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14669, 1998 WL 821886

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 18, 1998

DocketNo. 98-622

StatusPublished

This text of 723 So. 2d 851 (Landau v. Lupowitz) 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

Landau v. Lupowitz, 723 So. 2d 851, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14669, 1998 WL 821886 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the instant order setting aside a final default judgment. The only reason advanced in defendant Sam Lupow-itz’s motion to set aside the judgment was his claim that plaintiff Israel M. Landau’s complaint had cited to an incorrect statute number. Lupowitz argued neither excusable neglect nor a meritorious defense. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540. A trial judge should not provide relief from judgment in order to correct errors of law. See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla.1990); Eastern Ceiling & Supply Corp. v. Powerhouse Insulation Inc., 589 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, 315 So.2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also In re Estate of Beeman, 391 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Constant v. Tillitson, 214 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Because no valid basis was advanced for setting aside the judgment, the order under review was erroneously entered.

Accordingly, the order setting aside the final default judgment is reversed with directions to reinstate the final judgment.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the instant order setting aside a final default judgment. The only reason advanced in defendant Sam Lupow-itz’s motion to set aside the judgment was his claim that plaintiff Israel M. Landau’s complaint had cited to an incorrect statute number. Lupowitz argued neither excusable neglect nor a meritorious defense. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540. A trial judge should not provide relief from judgment in order to correct errors of law. See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla.1990); Eastern Ceiling & Supply Corp. v. Powerhouse Insulation Inc., 589 So.2d 383 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Division of Administration, 315 So.2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). See also In re Estate of Beeman, 391 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Constant v. Tillitson, 214 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). Because no valid basis was advanced for setting aside the judgment, the order under review was erroneously entered.

Accordingly, the order setting aside the final default judgment is reversed with directions to reinstate the final judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

723 So. 2d 851, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 14669, 1998 WL 821886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/landau-v-lupowitz-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack