UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S LONDON, APPELLANT,
v.
ROLLY MARINE SERVICE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Underwriters at Lloyd's London appealed a dismissal order based on a conflicting "wild order" filed in Dade County after the case had been properly transferred to Broward County. The court reversed, holding that the dismissal order was a clerical error and that Broward County retained jurisdiction to allow correction of the erroneous order under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a).
The court held that the Broward County trial court retained jurisdiction and erred in dismissing the case based on the wild order. The dismissal order was a clerical error under Rule 1.540(a) that could be corrected by the Dade County court, and Broward County should have allowed counsel to seek relief to retract the erroneous language.
[1] A clerical error in an order may be corrected under Rule 1.540(a) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, even if more than one year has passed since the order's entry.
[2] An order that erroneously states a case was settled when it was in fact transferred constitutes a clerical error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Before us now is a "wild" order. Apparently both sides agreed that Dade County constituted an improper venue and so stipulated on the record.”
Establishes the anomalous situation of two conflicting court orders and the parties' agreement on improper venue
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties stipulated to transfer the case from Dade County to Broward County via an order filed May 24, 1982. Both parties litigated the case in Bro…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.080 cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
This case involves two incompatible orders entered by the same Dade County circuit judge. The first in time of these was an order, stipulated to by counsel, transferring the case to Broward County. The second was an order of dismissal stating that the case had been settled which everyone agrees it had not. This latter order was finally interpreted by the Bro-ward County Circuit Judge, to whom the case had been transferred, to require dismissal because he had no jurisdiction. We disagree, reverse and remand.
We have all heard of “wild” deeds to real property. Before us now is a “wild” order. Apparently both sides agreed that Dade County constituted an improper venue and so stipulated on the record. The stipulation also incorporated the judge’s order filed May 24, 1982, which transferred the case to Broward County. All parties proceeded in Broward on this premise for over two years up through and during trial held in September of 1984. It was after the close of the plaintiff’s case that the trial court, sua sponte, discovered the wild order dismissing the case in Dade, said order filed June 14,1982, some three weeks after the stipulated-to order of transfer. This order of dismissal did not indicate that any copies of it were sent to counsel and in fact none were. (See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.080.) It is obvious it was never intended to be seen by counsel for either side, it was not prepared by counsel, not sent to counsel and was not known about by either counsel. Studying the wording of this wild order, it appears to be an internal form document intended to direct the Dade County clerk’s office to remove the case from the computer. Quite obviously the wrong form was used. Instead of directing that the case be removed from the computer because it had been transferred, the order erroneously, and completely out of the blue, commanded the removal because the case had been settled.
Thus, it is not the entry or the filing of the second order that constituted the error, it was the reason given in it that was error.
We agree that relief cannot be obtained under Rule 1.540(b) because over one year has gone by, but we see no reason why it could not be obtained under Rule 1.540(a). It was a “clerical error” to state that the cause was to be removed because it had been settled. All parties agree that it had not been settled, it had been transferred.
It is true that we have no authority over a Dade County Circuit Court, but we firmly believe that the Broward Circuit Court erred in assuming it had no jurisdiction because of this wild order which was filed after the order of transfer. We, therefore, reverse the Broward County trial judge’s ruling, and direct him to enter an order requiring counsel to seek relief under Rule 1.540(a) in Dade County. This would permit the Dade County trial judge to consider retracting the language of the order filed June 14th which contained an obvious clerical error. See Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162 (Fla.1979).
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bacon Fam. P'rs, L.P. v. Apollo Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 852 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)…v. Palm Beach Mall, Inc., 722 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Howard v. McAuley, 436 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); State ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. v. Hall, 247 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Rolly Marine Serv., Inc., 475 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Bacon prepared and filed the notice of voluntary dismissal without court participation. . One might take also the view that Bacon’s notice of dismissal was not effective to dismiss the Counterclaim. The notice bore the correct…1 / 2
-
Purdue v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 259 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)
-
DiPIAZZA v. Palm Beach Mall, Inc., 722 So. 2d 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…e granted based on clerical error. If the Wertalkas could not meet their burden, the motion should be denied because it would then involve a substantive change. See 475 So. 2d at 274. In Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v. Rolly Marine Service, Inc., 475 So. 2d 265 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), a “wild” order was entered because a clerk’s office employee used the wrong computer entry form, resulting in the case being erroneously dismissed when it should have been transferred to another ven [*833] ue. The circuit judge…
Authorities Cited
- Town OF Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1979)