Nieves Financial Investment Corp. v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Nieves Financial Investment Corp. v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

225 So. 3d 366, 2017 WL 3495759, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11741

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 2017

DocketNo. 3D16-1978

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 366 (Nieves Financial Investment Corp. v. U.S. Bank, N.A.) 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

Nieves Financial Investment Corp. v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 225 So. 3d 366, 2017 WL 3495759, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11741 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1990) (observing: “As correctly noted by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Fiber Crete Homes, Inc., v. Division of Administration, 315 So.2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), ‘rule 1.540 was intended to provide relief from judgments, degrees or orders under a limited set of circumstances.’ This rule was not ‘intended to serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by Rule 1.530 nor as a substitute for appellate review of judicial error.’ ”) See also Havanatur, S.A., v. 747 Travel Agency, Inc., 463 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that “‘the general rule—universally— is that intervention may not be allowed after final judgment,’ save ‘in the interests of justice’ ”) (quoting Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So.2d 435, 436-37 (Fla. 1969)).

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

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1990) (observing: “As correctly noted by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Fiber Crete Homes, Inc., v. Division of Administration, 315 So.2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), ‘rule 1.540 was intended to provide relief from judgments, degrees or orders under a limited set of circumstances.’ This rule was not ‘intended to serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by Rule 1.530 nor as a substitute for appellate review of judicial error.’ ”) See also Havanatur, S.A., v. 747 Travel Agency, Inc., 463 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that “‘the general rule—universally— is that intervention may not be allowed after final judgment,’ save ‘in the interests of justice’ ”) (quoting Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So.2d 435, 436-37 (Fla. 1969)).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 366, 2017 WL 3495759, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 11741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nieves-financial-investment-corp-v-us-bank-na-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack