Robert Lane v. Christopher Cunniffe

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Robert Lane v. Christopher Cunniffe

174 So. 3d 1123, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14075, 2015 WL 5613475

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 24, 2015

Docket4D15-174

StatusPublished

This text of 174 So. 3d 1123 (Robert Lane v. Christopher Cunniffe) 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

Robert Lane v. Christopher Cunniffe, 174 So. 3d 1123, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14075, 2015 WL 5613475 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the non-final order denying appellant’s motion for relief from final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l-.540(b). In August, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment. In September, 2014, the court denied a .motion for rehearing. Appellant did not appeal these rulings. Appellant filed his motion for relief from judgment on December 29, 2014. Although the trial court committed procedural errors in its handling of this motion, such errors were harmless; the rule 1.540(b) motion should have been stricken because it attempted to rehash matters raised in the motion for rehearing and failed to raise grounds authorized under rule 1.540(b). None of the evidence identified in the motion was “newly discovered” within the meaning of rule 1.540(b)(2). See Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. Grimaldi, 107 So.3d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Zivitz v. Zivitz, 16 So.3d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So.2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the non-final order denying appellant’s motion for relief from final judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure l-.540(b). In August, 2014, the trial court entered a final judgment. In September, 2014, the court denied a .motion for rehearing. Appellant did not appeal these rulings. Appellant filed his motion for relief from judgment on December 29, 2014. Although the trial court committed procedural errors in its handling of this motion, such errors were harmless; the rule 1.540(b) motion should have been stricken because it attempted to rehash matters raised in the motion for rehearing and failed to raise grounds authorized under rule 1.540(b). None of the evidence identified in the motion was “newly discovered” within the meaning of rule 1.540(b)(2). See Balmoral Condo. Ass’n v. Grimaldi, 107 So.3d 1149 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Zivitz v. Zivitz, 16 So.3d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Herskowitz v. Herskowitz, 513 So.2d 1318, 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).

CIKLIN, C.J., WARNER and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 So. 3d 1123, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 14075, 2015 WL 5613475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-lane-v-christopher-cunniffe-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack