MARIO COKA BORJA AND FANNY BARGE DE COCA, AS CO-EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF MARIO HUMBERTO COKA BARRIGA, EMPRESA DE SUMINISTROS INDUSTRAILES CIA, LTDA. (ESI); MARIO COKA BARRIGA CIA, LTDA. (MACOB); SERVICIOS Y TRANSPORTES C, LTDA. (SAYR); AND FANNY BORJA DE COKA, INDIVIDUALLY; PETITIONERS,
v.
NATIONSBANK OF FLORIDA, N.A., A NATIONAL BANK, F/K/A THE CITIZENS AND SOUTHERN NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, N.A., AND NCNB NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, N.A.; AND GUSTAVO A. ARDILA, INDIVIDUALLY, RESPONDENTS
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.
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to amend its final judgment to include the names of parties inadvertently omitted from the judgment. The court held that while mandamus was an appropriate remedy, the trial court should correct the judgment nunc pro tunc as a mere clerical error that does not affect the finality of the judgment.
The trial court's judgment is final despite the omission of party names, as these are merely technical clerical errors. Mandamus is an appropriate remedy where petitioners have a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty, and the court should amend the judgment nunc pro tunc to correct the omission without affecting the finality date for purposes of appeal.
[1] Mandamus is an appropriate remedy when a party has a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty and no other legal method for relief.
[2] A trial court may amend a final judgment nunc pro tunc to correct a clerical error, such as the omission of party names.
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“Mandamus is an appropriate remedy here where the petitioners have a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty and have no other legal method for obtaining relief.”
Establishes the test for when mandamus is available as a remedy in Florida
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA final judgment was entered by the trial court but inadvertently omitted the names of some parties to the action. Petitioners claimed that due to the…
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 Nunc Pro Tunc Amendment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of mandamus, petitioners seek an order directing the trial court to effectively amend its final judgment. The final judgment entered by the court inadvertently omits the names of some of the parties to the action. Due to this omission, petitioners claim that no final judgment was ever entered against the parties omitted. Respondents, however, argue that the omissions are merely technical errors that do not affect the finality of the judgment. We agree and find that the appropriate remedy is for the court to amend the judgment nunc pro tunc to the date of its final judgment.
Mandamus is an appropriate remedy here where the petitioners have a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty and have no other legal method for obtaining relief. See Pino v. District Court of Appeal, Third District, 604 So. 2d 1232, 1233 (Fla.1992); Parsons v. Wennet, 625 So. 2d 945, 948 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). However, we find that the trial court’s amendment of its final judgment to correct a mere clerical error will not affect its finality for purposes of appeal.1 See St. Moritz Hotel v. Daughtry, 249 So. 2d 27, 28 (Fla.1971) (amendment or modification of an order or judgment in an immaterial way does not toll the time within which review must be sought); Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274, 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (where successive judgments are entered and later judgment represents neither material change of earlier judgment nor a new exercise of discretion, time for appeal is counted from earlier judgment).
Accordingly, we direct the trial court to correct its final judgment to include the names of the omitted parties nunc pro tunc on the date of the original final judgment. Being confident the trial court will comply with the directions of this opinion, we withhold issuance of the writ.
. We also note that rather than seeking to have the judgment amended within the appropriate time frame, see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(g) ("A motion to alter or amend the judgment shall be served not later than 10 days after entry of the judgment ...."), petitioners waited almost an entire year before they sought the correction of this judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeGALE v. Krongold, 773 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…dgment and order for purposes of appeal.2 See Betts, 203 So. 2d at 632 (finding that corrected final judgment that merely changed amount of final judgment from $63,600.00 to $63,660.00 was not material change); Borja v. Nationsbank of Florida, N.A., 698 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997)(holding that inadvertent omission of names of some parties to action was mere technical error that did not affect finality of judgment); B.G. Leasing, 372 So. 2d at 185 (finding no material change in amended final judgment that d…
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Palmetto BAY, 744 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…discretionary, because Appellees cannot demonstrate “a clear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty” namely, the holding of an election, mandamus was inappropriately granted in the instant matter. Borja v. NationsBank of Florida, N.A., 698 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); Fraternal Order Of Police v. Odio, 491 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Reversed.…
-
Harris v. Dade Cnty. Corr. Dep't, 901 So. 2d 390 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)…lear legal right to the performance of a ministerial duty by the respondent and that no other adequate remedy exists.” Morse Diesel Int’l v.2000 Island Blvd., Inc., 698 So. 2d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); accord, Borja v. Nations-Bank of Fla., N.A., 698 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). As the petitioner has failed to provide any record proof of his assertion that he has been denied access to his attorney, that he has exhausted the administrative remedies available to him, or that the trial court which has con…
Authorities Cited
- ST. Moritz Hotel v. Jimmy C. Daughtry & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 249 So. 2d 27 (Fla. 1971)
- Elio Pino v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 604 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1992)
- Neville A. Chan v. Brunswick Corp., 388 So. 2d 274 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Parsons v. Wennet, 625 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)