AIM TARGET PROGRAMS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FAMILY QUEST, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, WILLIAM H. COVELL, JOHN D. SHOUSE, RONALD MURRAY, AND LLOYD U. YOUNG, JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY, APPELLEES
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.
Florida appellate court reversed an order allowing amendment of answer to seek attorney's fees after final judgment was entered, holding the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the amendment motion post-judgment.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend an answer after final judgment and dismissal have been entered, except in very limited circumstances under Rule 1.540.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend a pleading after final judgment and dismissal have been entered, except in very limited circumstances unde…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“trial court has no jurisdiction after litigation is concluded, except in 'very limited circumstances' on a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540”
Court citing Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co. regarding jurisdictional limits post-judgment
Aim Target Programs sued Family Quest and others. The trial court entered final summary judgment in favor of Ronald Murray and an order of dismissal o…
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 Judicial Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
PATTERSON, Chief Judge.
Appellant Aim Target Programs, Inc., challenges an order allowing amendment of appellee Ronald Murray’s answer to seek attorney’s fees under section 542.385, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), and the resulting order awarding attorney’s fees to Murray. At the time the trial court heard and granted Murray’s motion to amend his answer, the trial court had already entered final summary judgment in Murray’s favor1 and an order of dismissal on the remaining parties’ joint stipulation of dismissal.
Thus, the lawsuit had terminated, and the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to amend the answer. See Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Fla.1986) (holding that trial court has no jurisdiction after litigation is concluded, except in “very limited circumstances” on a motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540).
Therefore, we reverse the order allowing Murray to amend his answer to assert a claim for attorney’s fees under section 542.335. As a result, Murray failed to plead entitlement to attorney’s fees under section 542.335, thereby waiving the claim. See Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla.1991); Landry v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 731 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999).
Accordingly, we vacate the attorney’s fees order. THREADGILL and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . Aim did not file a motion for rehearing, nor did it file a notice of appeal from the final summary judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835 (Fla. 1991)
- Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1986)
- Dale R. Landry and wife v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 731 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)