Windell v. Dorr

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Windell v. Dorr

497 So. 2d 940, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10632

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1986

DocketNo. BJ-315

StatusPublished

This text of 497 So. 2d 940 (Windell v. Dorr) 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

Windell v. Dorr, 497 So. 2d 940, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10632 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

BARFIELD, Judge.

Following the entry of a default judgment against him as defendant below, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending lack of jurisdiction over him or the subject matter of the suit. We find the trial judge erred in dismissing the motion as being untimely filed. When properly considered in the procedural context, the substance of the motion was to challenge the judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction. Such a motion may be properly considered under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) as seeking relief from a final judgment. We therefore REMAND for the trial court to consider the merits of the motion under that rule.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

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

BARFIELD, Judge.

Following the entry of a default judgment against him as defendant below, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, contending lack of jurisdiction over him or the subject matter of the suit. We find the trial judge erred in dismissing the motion as being untimely filed. When properly considered in the procedural context, the substance of the motion was to challenge the judgment as void for lack of jurisdiction. Such a motion may be properly considered under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4) as seeking relief from a final judgment. We therefore REMAND for the trial court to consider the merits of the motion under that rule.

ERVIN and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 So. 2d 940, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2374, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 10632, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windell-v-dorr-fladistctapp-1986.