Belk v. McKAVENEY
| Citation | 903 So.2d 337 |
| Decision Date | 10 June 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D05-379.,2D05-379. |
| Parties | Deborah J. BELK, Appellant, v. James B. McKAVENEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Sarah M. Chaves, St. Petersburg, for Appellant.
Sean A. Costis, St. Petersburg, for Appellee.
Deborah Belk, the Mother, seeks review of the trial court's "Order on Guardian Ad Litem's Motion for Reconsideration; Order on Respondent's Motion for Reconsideration, and Order on Respondent's Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment" in this paternity action with the Father, James McKaveney. The Mother challenges that portion of the order that sets aside the August 9, 2004, supplemental final judgment. Because the trial court erred in granting the Father's "Motion to Set Aside Final Judgment" based on newly discovered evidence, we reverse as to that portion of the order and remand for the trial court to reinstate the supplemental final judgment. We affirm as to the remainder of the order.
The challenged order of the trial court set aside the supplemental final judgment that incorporated the terms of a settlement agreement entered into by the Mother and the Father, giving the Mother sole parental responsibility of the minor child and denying the Father visitation until recommended and agreed to by the child's therapist and the Mother. The supplemental final judgment was set aside, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(2), based on a finding that a report from the child's psychologist and a report from the child's guardian ad litem, appointed in a related case, were newly discovered evidence because they were not known at the time the parties entered into the settlement agreement.
We review for an abuse of discretion the trial court's ruling on a rule 1.540 motion to set aside judgment. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gulisano, 722 So.2d 216, 218 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). Rule 1.540(b)(2) provides in part that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment based on "newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing." Thus, by its express terms, rule 1.540(b)(2) does not offer relief to parties who could have discovered the evidence in time to file a motion for rehearing. See also Bellino v. W & W Lumber & Bldg. Supplies, Inc., 902 So.2d 829 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
. Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530, a motion for rehearing is timely if filed no later than ten days after the date of filing of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Statsick, Case No. 2D15–5388
...Farm timely appeals.II. We ordinarily review an order granting a motion under rule 1.540(b) for abuse of discretion. Belk v. McKaveney, 903 So.2d 337, 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). But see Wiggins v. Tigrent, Inc., 147 So.3d 76, 80 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) ("The de novo standard of review also applies ......
-
Casteel v. Maddalena
...not have discovered the evidence through due diligence within the time to move for rehearing or a new trial. See Belk v. McKaveney, 903 So.2d 337, 338 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing rule 1.540(b)(2)). The trial court did not make a finding as to whether Maddalena had proven due diligence. Inste......
-
Singer v. Singer, Case No. 2D18-1854
...Eichler's motion and renewed motion were timely filed. Our standard of review here, too, is abuse of discretion. Belk v. McKaveney, 903 So. 2d 337, 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The deaths of Ms. Eichler's boyfriend and father soon after the trial court's oral pronouncement materially altered the......
-
Singer v. Singer
...Ms. Eichler's motion and renewed motion were timely filed.Our standard of review here, too, is abuse of discretion. Belk v. McKaveney, 903 So. 2d 337, 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The deaths of Ms. Eichler's boyfriend and father soon after the trial court's oral pronouncement materially altered ......
-
Parental responsibility
...the lawyers at least 24 to 48 hours with the report prior to presentation of that oral report to the court. CASES • Belk v. McKaveney, 903 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The reports were not newly discovered evidence that through due diligence could not have been discovered prior to enterin......