Wright v. Scott

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wright v. Scott

658 So. 2d 1215, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550, 1995 WL 478313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 15, 1995

DocketNo. 94-3823

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 658 So. 2d 1215 (Wright v. Scott) 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

Wright v. Scott, 658 So. 2d 1215, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550, 1995 WL 478313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Ronald L. Wright appeals a final summary judgment adding him, individually, to a final judgment obtained by appellee, Marcus Bernard Scott, several years earlier. However, Scott’s motion to correct the final judgment, which was made pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), was filed more than two years after entry of the initial final judgment, and nearly 18 months after entry of the last amended final judgment. Therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to amend the final judgment by adding Wright, because more than one year had passed since entry of the last amended final judgment. Kippy Corp. v. Colburn, 177 So.2d 193 (Fla.1965); Hartley v. Andriuli, 595 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); St. Cloud Utilities v. Moore, 410 So.2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Avant v. Waites, 295 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Even though Wright failed to raise this error below, it is fundamental error which can be raised for the first time on appeal. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970); Love v. Hannah, 72 So.2d 39 (Fla.1954); Hadley v. Hadley, 140 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

REVERSED.

ERVIN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Ronald L. Wright appeals a final summary judgment adding him, individually, to a final judgment obtained by appellee, Marcus Bernard Scott, several years earlier. However, Scott’s motion to correct the final judgment, which was made pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), was filed more than two years after entry of the initial final judgment, and nearly 18 months after entry of the last amended final judgment. Therefore, the trial court was without jurisdiction to amend the final judgment by adding Wright, because more than one year had passed since entry of the last amended final judgment. Kippy Corp. v. Colburn, 177 So.2d 193 (Fla.1965); Hartley v. Andriuli, 595 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); St. Cloud Utilities v. Moore, 410 So.2d 973 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Avant v. Waites, 295 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974). Even though Wright failed to raise this error below, it is fundamental error which can be raised for the first time on appeal. Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So.2d 134 (Fla.1970); Love v. Hannah, 72 So.2d 39 (Fla.1954); Hadley v. Hadley, 140 So.2d 326 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).

REVERSED.

ERVIN, BENTON and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 So. 2d 1215, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 8550, 1995 WL 478313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-scott-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack