Rodriguez-Lehmann v. Conde

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rodriguez-Lehmann v. Conde

549 So. 2d 1130, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5622, 1989 WL 118925

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 10, 1989

DocketNo. 88-2620

StatusPublished

This text of 549 So. 2d 1130 (Rodriguez-Lehmann v. Conde) 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

Rodriguez-Lehmann v. Conde, 549 So. 2d 1130, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5622, 1989 WL 118925 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is undisputed that appellants, defendants below, did not receive notice of the motion for summary judgment or proceedings thereon. The motion for relief from judgment should have been granted pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(4), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Falkner v. AmeriFirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So.2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The final judgment is therefore vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM.

It is undisputed that appellants, defendants below, did not receive notice of the motion for summary judgment or proceedings thereon. The motion for relief from judgment should have been granted pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(4), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Falkner v. AmeriFirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So.2d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). The final judgment is therefore vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

549 So. 2d 1130, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 5622, 1989 WL 118925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodriguez-lehmann-v-conde-fladistctapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack