JEFFREY HOLLINGSWORTH, APPELLANT,
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS CAPITAL 1 INC. TRUST 2006-WMC2, 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.
The court affirmed the denial of a motion to vacate a final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) because the motion was untimely filed and did not satisfy the requirements for relief under subsection (b)(5).
A motion to vacate a final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1)-(3) is properly denied when filed more than one year after entry of the final judgment, and relief under subsection (b)(5) requires significant new evidence or substantial changes in circumstances making enforcement inequitable.
[1] A motion to vacate a final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) requires the movant to establish that significant new evidence or substantial change…
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 intelligenceHollingsworth filed a motion to vacate a final judgment against him in a case involving Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee, alleging frau…
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 Timeliness Of Post-Judgment Motions cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the denial of relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(l)-(3) on grounds the motion was untimely. See NAFH Nat’l Bank v. Aristizabal, 117 So.3d 900, 901-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding motion to vacate final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(2) and (3), on grounds bank committed fraud, “was untimely because the appellees filed it ‘more than 1 year’ after the ... final judgment”); Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 95 So.3d 1021, 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding motion to vacate judgment on grounds bank misrepresented ownership of note and mortgage at the time of filing suit was untimely when “[t]he Dages waited more than two years after the entry of the final judgment before moving to vacate the default and judgment”).
The trial court also properly rejected the contention that relief was available pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(5).- See Pure H20 Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 937 So.2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Rule 1.540(b)(5) “requires the movant to establish that significant new evidence or substantial changes in circumstances arising after the entry of the judgment make it ‘no longer equitable’ for the trial court to enforce its earlier order.” (citation omitted; emphasis omitted)).
Affirmed.
WOLF, BENTON, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells v. Halmac Dev., Inc., 189 So. 3d 1015 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…granted Wells’ motion for attorney’s fees, under section 57.105(l)(b), from February 14, 2012 — the date that the arbitrator expressly determined that there was no prevailing party as between Wells and Castro. See In re Forfeiture of 100,000 Euros, 170 So. 3d 810, 817 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (reversing trial court’s denial of 57.105 fees where “neither the facts nor the law supported in any fashion” the claims of the appelléés.) See also Albritton v. Ferrera, 913 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (holding that party i…
-
Steele v. Pansy Brown, 197 So. 3d 106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…Rule 1.540(b)(6) must be predicated on new evidence, or a substantial change in circumstances after the entry of judgment that makes it inequitable for the trial court to enforce its earlier order. See Hollingsworth v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 170 So. 3d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (citing Pure H20 Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 937 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)). But there wasn’t new evidence here, or a substantial change in circumstances. Ms. Brown argues that the death of her mother, Mr. Steel…
Authorities Cited
- Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 95 So. 3d 1021 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Pure H20 Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 937 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Nafh Nat'l Bank v. Aristizabal, 117 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)