Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman
Decision Date | 23 July 2004 |
Docket Number | No. 2D03-4802.,2D03-4802. |
Citation | 884 So.2d 164 |
Parties | COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Stephen A. FREEMAN and Nelson Slosbergas, as Trustees, Appellees. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Marsha G. Rydberg and Thomas H. Rydberg of The Rydberg Law Firm, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.
Mark J. Bernet and Jon T. Gatto of Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C., Tampa, for Appellees.
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company (Commonwealth) appeals an order granting relief from judgment pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b). We conclude that the motion filed by Stephen A. Freeman and Nelson Slosbergas, as trustees (the Trustees),1 contained no grounds entitling them to relief. Likewise, the trial court lacked a basis to provide relief on its own motion. The trial court correctly determined that it could not grant relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530(g). Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for reentry of the judgment.
In 1995, the Trustees loaned the Feinstein Family Trust $2.1 million, secured by a mortgage on three parcels of real property. Commonwealth issued a lender's policy of title insurance for this transaction. Thereafter, the Feinstein Family Partnership filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding. In connection with the bankruptcy, two issues arose, which are not germane to this discussion. These issues might have permitted the Trustees to make a claim on the insurance policy based on other liens asserted against the property in the chapter 11 proceeding.
Commonwealth filed an action for declaratory judgment against the Trustees to determine its rights and responsibilities under the insurance policy concerning these two issues. The Trustees filed a counterclaim for breach of contract. The parties stipulated to many facts and tried the remaining issues before the trial court. On December 20, 2002, the court sent the parties a detailed memorandum, which favored Commonwealth, containing extensive findings of fact and rulings on the legal issues. Thereafter, at the request of the trial court, counsel for Commonwealth prepared a draft final judgment based on the memorandum. On February 12, 2003, the trial court entered its final judgment in accordance with its earlier memorandum. At the end of this judgment, the court "adjudged" that "[the Trustees] take nothing by their counterclaim and Commonwealth shall go hence without day."
On February 19, 2003, apparently on its own motion, the trial court filed an amended final judgment. The amended final judgment differs from the original judgment in only two minor ways. First, footnote 2 originally stated "Kennedy Funding was the holder of a prime mortgage," and the amended version changed "prime" to "priming." Second, footnote 8 had originally contained a list of items that the footnote stated were "printed in bold." They were not so printed. The amended judgment stated that they were "printed in italics," and they were so printed. The amendments changed nothing of substance in the final judgment, including the judgment in favor of Commonwealth on the counterclaim.
On Monday, March 3, 2003, the Trustees served a "motion to alter or amend judgment" pursuant to rules 1.530(g) and 1.540. This short motion alleged only that the court's judgment "made no findings whatsoever regarding [the Trustees'] principal defense, namely, that by its representations and inactions [Commonwealth] had waived its right under the insurance policy to insist upon [the Trustees'] strict compliance with the terms thereof." If the time for filing this motion was measured from the amended final judgment, it was served within the ten days allotted for a motion under rule 1.530(g). If measured from the original final judgment, however, the motion was untimely. After a hearing, the trial court concluded that the motion was untimely under rule 1.530, but granted the motion pursuant to rule 1.540. In the order granting relief, the trial court did not conclude that it had left open the Trustees' principal defense. Instead, it stated that it had failed to rule on the counterclaim due to inadvertence. The trial court found for the Trustees on the counterclaim, but concluded that the Trustees' damages were much lower than they claimed. The trial court did not determine the exact amount of damages in granting relief from the judgment. Commonwealth appealed this order.
Commonwealth argues that the trial court erred in concluding that there were any grounds upon which it could grant relief from the final judgment. We agree. The trial court simply reversed its position on the counterclaim, suggesting that it had inadvertently failed to rule on the counterclaim when it had clearly entered judgment against the Trustees on this counterclaim.
Considering the Trustees' motion first, it fails to allege any valid ground for relief from judgment that is enumerated in rule 1.540(b). The Trustees only argue that the trial court failed to rule on defenses presented at trial. This may be a valid ground for relief under rule 1.530, but it is not the type of mistake that permits relief from a judgment under rule 1.540(b). Rule 1.540(b) is intended to provide relief from judgments only under a limited set of circumstances. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b); Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla.1990); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Div. of Admin., 315 So.2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). A motion filed pursuant to rule 1.540 cannot be used as a substitute for an untimely motion for new trial or rehearing. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Gulisano, 722 So.2d 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).
receded from on other grounds, In re Beeman's Estate, 391 So.2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The trial court, however, can only grant such relief for one of the enumerated reasons in the rule. Curbelo, 571 So.2d at 445. Although the trial court characterized its correction as an inadvertent omission, the trial court in reality reversed its legal position by finding a breach of contract by Commonwealth. This is the type of judicial error that is not correctable on a rule 1.540 motion. Curbelo, 571 So.2d at 444; Everett v. Fla. Transp. Servs., Inc., 744 So.2d 1038, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Bortz, 675 So.2d at 624.
We have considered whether the trial court may have had authority to grant relief from the judgment on its own motion pursuant to rule 1.540(a). That rule allows judges to correct errors in judgments at any time on their own initiative for errors that arise from "oversight or omission." Although a trial court may correct a clerical error at any time under this rule, the law is clear that judicial errors that affect the substance of a judgment cannot be corrected in this fashion. Bolton v. Bolton, 787 So.2d 237, 238 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Clearwater...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sterling Factors v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n
... ... and directing the clerk to issue a certificate of title to Mr. Nester. If Mr. and Mrs. Meyers or any of the other ... Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Bevis, 652 So.2d 382, 383 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). In ... See Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So.2d 164, 167 (Fla ... ...
-
Padot v. Padot, No. 2D03-1011
... ... See also Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So.2d 164, 29 Fla. L ... ...
-
Dep't of Revenue ex rel. Williams v. Annis, 2D14–301.
... ... See Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So.2d 164, 167 (Fla. 2d ... ...
-
Pernas v. Poggi
... ... 4th DCA 1975))); Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So.2d 164 (Fla. 2d DCA ... ...
-
Chapter 14-3 Rule 1.540 and Motions to Vacate Judgment
...(finding that Rule 1.540 is not a substitute for a timely 1.530 motion or an appeal); see Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).[54] See, e.g., Lovett v. Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-1, 149 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).[55] Beaulie......
-
Chapter 14-3 Rule 1.540 and Motions to Vacate Judgment
...that Rule 1.540 is not a substitute for a timely 1.530 motion or an appeal); see also Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Freeman, 884 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).[73] See, e.g., Lovett v. Nat'l Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2004-1, 149 So. 3d 735 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014).[74] Beaulieu v.......