Fuller v. Fuller

2 Citing cases

  1. Brown v. Cannady-Brown

    36 So. 3d 166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 1 times

    In a family law case, the length of time that an obligation is to be paid is an error that affects the substance of a judgment; not a "clerical" mistake that can be corrected under rule 1.540(a). See Malone, 875 So.2d at 1288 (holding that the addition of a provision extending support beyond child's eighteenth birthday "was substantive, not clerical"); Padot v. Padot, 891 So.2d 1079, 1084-85 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (holding that changing the period of retroactivity of sums owed to former wife was not a "clerical correction under rule 1.540"); Fuller v. Fuller, 706 So.2d 57, 59-60 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that provision relieving father of obligation to pay child support during the summer was substantive provision and not an "omission or oversight" that could be corrected under rule 1.540(a)). The former husband did not timely bring a motion under rule 1.530. Nor did he raise the issue of retroactivity of the alimony payments in a timely filed appeal.

  2. Nutter v. Nutter

    909 So. 2d 925 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

    PER CURIAM. We reverse the Order of Clarification of Final Judgment because the Motion for Clarification, which is the equivalent of a motion for rehearing, Fuller v. Fuller, 706 So.2d 57, 59 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), was not timely filed. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530(b) (Motions for rehearing are not timely filed unless they are served no later than 10 days after the date of the final judgment.).