GRAHAM JR.
v.
FLAMINGO WAY ENTERPRISES
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.
Tate and Stoppa lacked standing to challenge the final judgment, but Graham was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion alleging fraud.
[1] A party challenging a final judgment on grounds other than standing must be afforded an evidentiary hearing on a Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion alleging fraud before the trial c…
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 intelligenceThe trial court entered a final judgment on September 15, 2016, authorizing a statutory trustee to execute documents transferring property from a diss…
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 Dissolved Corporation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated appeals, appellants Stanley G. Tate and Anamarie
Kelly Stoppa (case number 3D17-1753) and appellant Thomas Graham (case number 3D17-2505) each appeal separate orders of the trial court denying their respective motions seeking to vacate a September 15, 2016 final judgment entered by the trial court. This final judgment authorized a statutory trustee of a dissolved corporation to execute documents associated with the transfer of property from the dissolved corporation to appellee Flamingo Way Enterprises, LLC.
We affirm the order in case number 3D17-1753 because the trial court correctly concluded that appellants Tate and Stoppa lacked standing to challenge the final judgment. We reverse the order as to appellant Graham, however, and remand to the trial court to conduct an evidentiary hearing on Graham’s September
14, 2017 rule 1.540(b)(3) motion and appellee’s response in opposition to same.
Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine Art Grp., Inc., 139 So. 3d 355, 337 (Fla. 3d DCA
2014).1
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine ART Grp., Inc., 139 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)