Rooks v. Rooks

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rooks v. Rooks

947 So. 2d 626, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 413, 2007 WL 101205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 17, 2007

DocketNo. 4D06-674

StatusPublished

This text of 947 So. 2d 626 (Rooks v. Rooks) 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

Rooks v. Rooks, 947 So. 2d 626, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 413, 2007 WL 101205 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

The marriage of Rachel and Harvey Rooks was dissolved in 2002 by a judgment which incorporated a property settlement agreement. After Harvey’s death, in 2004, his son, as personal representative of his estate, filed a motion to set aside the agreement alleging that Rachel had used undue influence, made fraudulent misrepresentations, and failed to financially disclose her assets. The trial court granted Rachel’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the one year period of limitations for filing the Rule 1.540(b) motion to set aside the judgment had expired. Harvey’s estate argues that the motion alleged a fraud on the court, which is not governed by the one year period; however, the Florida Supreme Court has held that allegations of the type made in this case do not amount to fraud on the court. Cerniglia v. Cerniglia, 679 So.2d 1160 (Fla.1996); DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.[627]*6271984). We conclude the trial court was correct and affirm.

HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

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

KLEIN, J.

The marriage of Rachel and Harvey Rooks was dissolved in 2002 by a judgment which incorporated a property settlement agreement. After Harvey’s death, in 2004, his son, as personal representative of his estate, filed a motion to set aside the agreement alleging that Rachel had used undue influence, made fraudulent misrepresentations, and failed to financially disclose her assets. The trial court granted Rachel’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the one year period of limitations for filing the Rule 1.540(b) motion to set aside the judgment had expired. Harvey’s estate argues that the motion alleged a fraud on the court, which is not governed by the one year period; however, the Florida Supreme Court has held that allegations of the type made in this case do not amount to fraud on the court. Cerniglia v. Cerniglia, 679 So.2d 1160 (Fla.1996); DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375 (Fla.[627]*6271984). We conclude the trial court was correct and affirm.

HAZOURI and MAY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

947 So. 2d 626, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 413, 2007 WL 101205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rooks-v-rooks-fladistctapp-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack