McDuffie v. City of Jacksonville

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McDuffie v. City of Jacksonville

763 So. 2d 1201, 2000 WL 139240

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 2000

DocketNo. 1D98-1449

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 763 So. 2d 1201 (McDuffie v. City of Jacksonville) 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

McDuffie v. City of Jacksonville, 763 So. 2d 1201, 2000 WL 139240 (Fla. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ernest McDuffie, doing business as D & M Contracting Company, appearing pro se, timely appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the City of Jacksonville, appellee, entered on April 3,1998 in appel-lee’s action for foreclosure of real property in which McDuffie held an interest. An attachment to appellant’s initial brief reflects that the April 3, 1998 final summary judgment was vacated by the trial court on June 29, 1998. Thereafter, the City filed a second amended complaint in the same action and, on November 24,1998, the trial court entered final judgment on that second amended complaint. The City indicates in its answer brief that the April 3, 1998 foreclosure judgment was vacated because it contained an incorrect legal description of the subject property. Appellant has neither filed a notice of appeal with regard to the November 24, 1998 judgment nor sought to amend his notice of appeal. Sua sponte, this court ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the order before this court was not a final order or an appealable non-final order.

Upon review of appellant’s response to the order to show cause and the record on appeal, we conclude that the final summary judgment dated April 3, 1998 was a final order and that on June 29, 1998 the trial court was without authority to vacate, that order. See First Union Nat’l Bank of Florida v. Yost, 622 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1st [1202]*1202DCA 1993)(relief from judgment due to mistake, newly discovered evidence, and so on, may not be obtained if appellate jurisdiction has been invoked); Georges v. Insurance Technicians, Inc., 486 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(pendency of appeal from final judgment removed trial court’s jurisdiction to grant motion to vacate a judgment). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the April 3, 1998 order. On review of the order on appeal, finding no merit to the arguments presented, we affirm the final summary judgment of foreclosure entered on April 3, 1998. Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to the filing of a motion to correct the judgment on remand.. See Rule 1.540(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, WEBSTER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ernest McDuffie, doing business as D & M Contracting Company, appearing pro se, timely appeals a final summary judgment in favor of the City of Jacksonville, appellee, entered on April 3,1998 in appel-lee’s action for foreclosure of real property in which McDuffie held an interest. An attachment to appellant’s initial brief reflects that the April 3, 1998 final summary judgment was vacated by the trial court on June 29, 1998. Thereafter, the City filed a second amended complaint in the same action and, on November 24,1998, the trial court entered final judgment on that second amended complaint. The City indicates in its answer brief that the April 3, 1998 foreclosure judgment was vacated because it contained an incorrect legal description of the subject property. Appellant has neither filed a notice of appeal with regard to the November 24, 1998 judgment nor sought to amend his notice of appeal. Sua sponte, this court ordered appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed because the order before this court was not a final order or an appealable non-final order.

Upon review of appellant’s response to the order to show cause and the record on appeal, we conclude that the final summary judgment dated April 3, 1998 was a final order and that on June 29, 1998 the trial court was without authority to vacate, that order. See First Union Nat’l Bank of Florida v. Yost, 622 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1st [1202]*1202DCA 1993)(relief from judgment due to mistake, newly discovered evidence, and so on, may not be obtained if appellate jurisdiction has been invoked); Georges v. Insurance Technicians, Inc., 486 So.2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)(pendency of appeal from final judgment removed trial court’s jurisdiction to grant motion to vacate a judgment). Thus, we have jurisdiction to review the April 3, 1998 order. On review of the order on appeal, finding no merit to the arguments presented, we affirm the final summary judgment of foreclosure entered on April 3, 1998. Our affirmance, however, is without prejudice to the filing of a motion to correct the judgment on remand.. See Rule 1.540(a), Fla. R. Civ. P.

AFFIRMED.

KAHN, WEBSTER AND VAN NORTWICK, JJ., CONCUR.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 So. 2d 1201, 2000 WL 139240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcduffie-v-city-of-jacksonville-fladistctapp-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack