Erhardt v. Erhardt, 77-1936
| Decision Date | 09 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-1936,77-1936 |
| Parties | Annalee ERHARDT, Appellant, v. Harold George ERHARDT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
William D. Keith, of Monaco, Cardillo & Keith, Naples, for appellant.
Richard D. Sparkman, of Sparkman & Hamilton, Naples, for appellee.
Subsequent to the entry of an order granting the motion for default filed by appellant/wife Annalee Erhardt, the trial court entered a final decree of dissolution of the marriage between appellant and appellee/husband Harold George Erhardt on August 19, 1975. Appellant was awarded $300 per month permanent alimony, and appellee was ordered to provide $600 per month child support.
On May 3, 1977 appellee, in an independent action, filed a petition for relief from that final judgment alleging that appellant had fraudulently misrepresented the income of appellee and that the trial court relied on this misrepresentation as a basis for the alimony and child support awards. The petition requested that appellee be relieved of the child support and alimony obligations. It should be noted that at the time the petition was filed appellee was approximately $17,000 in arrears on these obligations. After appellee filed his petition, the trial court in effect reopened the dissolution action and consolidated it with appellee's petition.
At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing on the petition the trial court found that appellee was not making as much money as appellant had said he was during the dissolution action. However, the court found that no fraud had been committed upon the court, but that appellant had been "working under a bonafide (sic) mistake of fact." The court further ruled that appellee was relieved of the obligations imposed under the previous final judgment of dissolution, including the $17,000 in arrearages. The court directed the husband to begin paying $300 per month child support, but did not require him to pay any alimony. Soon thereafter the trial court entered an amended final judgment in the original dissolution proceedings embodying the above. It is from this amended final judgment that wife appeals.
Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part:
On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or his legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order or proceeding for the following reasons: . . . (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic) . . . . The motion shall be made...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Brown
...blind followers of the Alexander dictum. The last surviving heir of Alexander which we have been able to locate is Erhardt v. Erhardt, 362 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). While Erhardt pays no tribute to the progenitorship of Alexander or any other case, its distinct resemblance to Alexander g......
-
DeClaire v. Yohanan
...to the commencement of this action. We find direct conflict with Truitt v. Truitt, 383 So.2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Erhardt v. Erhardt, 362 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), review denied, 368 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1979); August v. August, 350 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); and Kimbrough v. McCranie,......
-
Guerriero v. Schaub
...Arrieta-Giminez v. Arrieta-Negron, 551 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1989); Truitt v. Truitt, 383 So.2d 276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Erhardt v. Erhardt, 362 So.2d 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), cert. denied, 368 So.2d 1366 (Fla.1979); August v. August, 350 So.2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA In DeClaire, it was alleged that the ......
-
Lagarde v. Outdoor Resorts of America, Inc.
...in a class action is by a proceeding pursuant to rule 1.540(b). Scott v. Walker, 378 So.2d 828 (Fla.2d DCA 1979); Erhardt v. Erhardt, 362 So.2d 70 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). The parties who sought that relief in the previous trial proceeding and its ensuing appeal are the same parties who brought t......