Newell v. Moore

789 So. 2d 538, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10277, 2001 WL 826828
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 24, 2001·No. No. 1D99-4569·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court denied a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment. In this motion the appellant indicated that he had received a misdated copy of the judgment and that this frustrated his ability to timely appeal therefrom. The appellant asked the court to vacate and then reenter the prior order, so as to preserve his right to appeal. Although the court found that the order in the court file was properly dated, cases such as Griffin v. Florida Parole Commission, 727 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and Gibson v. Buice, 381 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), suggest that such relief should be afforded under rule 1.540(b) when a party does not receive a copy of the order as entered by the court. The appellant’s motion is thus facially sufficient and may warrant relief if the allegations therein are established as accurate and true. The appealed order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.

ALLEN, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.

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

Newell v. Moore, 789 So. 2d 538, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 10277, 2001 WL 826828 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

789 So. 2d 538 (Newell v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

James Levoy Waters v. Pam Childers, Clerk and Comptroller, Escambia County, Florida
198 So. 3d 1007 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
Newell v. Moore
819 So. 2d 846 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2002)
G.C. v. Department of Children & Families
796 So. 2d 1291 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2001)