Casteel v. Maddalena

9 Citing cases

  1. IOU Cent. Inc. v. Pezzano Contracting & Dev., LLC

    311 So. 3d 295 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 5 times

    A trial court's order on a motion for relief from judgment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So. 3d 1252, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). However, when a trial court's decision to apply rule 1.540 is purely a question of law, we review that decision de novo.

  2. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Nationwide Equities Corp.

    304 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 12 times

    Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) is patterned after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). See Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So. 3d 1252, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Federal rule 60(b)(3), like Florida rule 1.540(b)(3), authorizes a federal district court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order for "fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party."

  3. Stirberg v. Fein

    357 So. 3d 1233 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2023)

    A trial court's decision regarding the proper application of rule 1.540(b) is reviewed de novo. See Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So.3d 1252, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Where the rule is properly applied, "the standard of review of an order denying a Rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment is abuse of discretion."

  4. Neapolitan Enters. v. Fishman

    303 So. 3d 1258 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Importantly, the movant bears the burden of establishing that he exercised due diligence. See Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So. 3d 1252, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[T]o obtain relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must demonstrate that [ ]he could not have discovered the evidence through due diligence within the time to move for rehearing or a new trial."). Mr. Fishman did not assert or establish that despite exercising diligence he was unable to discover the error regarding the medical records until months after trial.

  5. Singer v. Singer

    302 So. 3d 955 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 4 times

    Rule 12.540(b)(2) provides only that to qualify as newly discovered evidence, the evidence simply could not have been discovered through due diligence in time to move for a new trial or rehearing.Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So. 3d 1252, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[T]o obtain relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must demonstrate that she could not have discovered the evidence through due diligence within the time to move for rehearing or a new trial."). This necessarily contemplates evidence that was in existence at the time but that could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, as well as evidence that could not have been discovered, despite the exercise of due diligence, because the evidence was simply not extant.

  6. Singer v. Singer

    Case No. 2D18-1854 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2020)

    Rule 12.540(b)(2) provides only that to qualify as newly discovered evidence, the evidence simply could not have been discovered through due diligence in time to move for a new trial or rehearing.Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So. 3d 1252, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("[T]o obtain relief from judgment based on newly discovered evidence, the movant must demonstrate that she could not have discovered the evidence through due diligence within the time to move for rehearing or a new trial."). This necessarily contemplates evidence that was in existence at the time but that could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, as well as evidence that could not have been discovered, despite the exercise of due diligence, because the evidence was simply not extant.

  7. Manzaro v. D'Alessandro

    229 So. 3d 843 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Rule 1.540(b) is modeled after the Federal Rules and, therefore, we look to federal case law to aid in our interpretation of the rule. Molinos Del S.A. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 947 So.2d 521, 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (looking to federal case law interpreting Rule 1.540(b) and noting "the federal rule is substantially the same as Rule 1.540(b)."); Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So.3d 1252, 1256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("because rule 1.540 was modeled after Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60, we may resort to federal case law to aid us in our interpretation of rule 1.540.").--------

  8. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Statsick

    231 So. 3d 528 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 11 times
    Discussing de novo standard of review applicable to orders entered pursuant to rule 1.540(b)

    A determination that relief under rule 1.540(b)(4) was warranted on that basis depended, in turn, on the legal conclusion that when a settlement agreement forming the basis for a stipulated judgment is void, the resultant judgment itself is void. That conclusion presents a pure question of law, which we evaluate de novo. See Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So.3d 1252, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (holding that where a trial court's decision to apply rule 1.540(b) presents "purely a question of law, we apply a de novo review to that decision"). A judgment is void when it is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or where there is a violation of due process.

  9. Eagle FL VI SPE, LLC v. T & A Family Partnership, Ltd.

    177 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    But where the trial court's decision is purely one of law, we review it de novo. See Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So.3d 1252, 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). Moreover, in cases like this one “[w]here a trial court rules on the basis of a written record and not on testimony requiring credibility determinations, the appellate court has before it everything the trial court reviewed, and we have the same opportunity to weigh it as the trial court did.” Town of Jupiter v. Alexander, 747 So.2d 395, 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).