JAMES F. CHMIEL
v.
NXTLVL SERVICES, LLC
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.
A trial court's ruling on a Rule 1.540 motion should not be disturbed on appeal absent a gross abuse of discretion, as such relief is a fact-specific question.
[1] A trial court's ruling on a Rule 1.540 motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and such relief is determined on a fact-specific basis that will not be disturbed on ap…
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“Whether relief should be granted pursuant to Rule 1.540 is a fact specific question and the trial court's ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a gross abuse of discretion.”
Standard of review for Rule 1.540 motions
James F. Chmiel and others appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County regarding a Rule 1.540 motion involving NXTLVL Serv…
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 Clerical Error cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed January 3, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-1469 Lower Tribunal No. 23-3255
________________
James F. Chmiel, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
NXTLVL Services, LLC, et al., Appellees.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami- Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge. Black Law, P.A., and Kelsey K. Black (Fort Lauderdale), for appellants. Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A., and John Cody German, Justin S. Maya and Nicholas M. Nash, II, for appellees. Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. LPP Mortgage Ltd. v. Bank of Am., N.A., 826 So. 2d 462, 463–64 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (“Whether relief should be granted pursuant to Rule 1.540 is a fact specific question and the trial court’s ruling should not be disturbed on appeal absent a gross abuse of discretion.”); Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (“[W]here inaction results from clerical or secretarial error, reasonable misunderstanding, a system gone awry or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir, then upon timely application accompanied by a reasonable and credible explanation the matter should be permitted to be heard on the merits.”); Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Coral Bay Section C Homeowners Ass’n, Inc., 979 So. 2d 318, 322 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (“Florida has a long-standing policy in favor of deciding lawsuits on their merits.”); Lloyd’s Underwriter’s At London v. Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (“In implementing this policy, ‘if there be any reasonable doubt in the matter [of vacating a default], it should be resolved in favor of granting the application and allowing a trial upon the merits.’” (quoting N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849, 852–53 (Fla. 1962)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- N. Shore Hosp., Inc. v. Barber, 143 So. 2d 849 (Fla. 1962)
- Glenna Somero and Robert Somero v. Hendry Gen. Hosp., 467 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Lloyd's Underwriter's AT London v. Ruby, Inc., 801 So. 2d 138 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)
- Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Coral BAY Section C Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 979 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)
- LPP Mortg. Ltd. v. Bank OF Am., N.A., 826 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)