JENNIFER VAN BERGEN
v.
SCOTT T. KOPPEL, DPM
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.
When an appellant claims she did not receive timely notice of a summary judgment order due to trial court email system failure, she states a colorable claim under Rule 1.540(b) entitling her to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether she received timely notice and had opportunity for timely appeal.
[1] A claim that a party did not receive timely notice of a judgment due to trial court email system failure constitutes a colorable claim under Florida Rule of Civil Procedu…
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 Summary Judgment Order on May 1, 2018. Appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment contending she did not receive time…
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 Rule 1.540(B) Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
August 30, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Upon Appellee’s proper concession of error, we reverse the trial court’s order summarily denying Appellant’s motion for relief from judgment and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the motion. In her motion for relief from judgment, Appellant contended that she did not receive timely notice of the Summary Judgment Order the trial court entered on May 1, 2018, due to an issue with the trial court’s email system. We agree that this was a colorable claim under rule 1.540(b), and that an evidentiary hearing was needed to determine whether Appellant had timely received the order and whether she had an opportunity to seek a timely appeal. See Yasir v. Forman, 199 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993, 995 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
2
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. LEWIS, OSTERHAUS, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.
_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)
- Seal v. Brown, 801 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
- Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir v. Forman, 199 So. 3d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)