Such relief is not available in a nunc pro tunc order. See, e.g., Hunter v. Hunter, 487 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) ("[T]he divestment of jurisdiction is a change in substance, and not merely a correction of an omission, and thus is not within the realm of the nunc pro tunc order.") Furthermore, the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture was final as to the Petitioner's rights in the $48,465.00.United States v. Gross, 213 F.3d 599, 599 (11th Cir. 2000) (holding that the preliminary order of forfeiture was final and appealable because the preliminary order finally determined the defendant's rights in the forfeited property).
lt is not changed by the fact that the trial court ultimately amended nunc pro tunc its final judgment awarding damages to include a clause reserving jurisdiction to award injunctive relief, since the initial failure to reserve such jurisdiction was not the result of mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect subject to being corrected under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), see Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Pearson, 236 So.2d 1 (Fla. 1970); Metropolitan Dade County v. Certain Lands Upon Which Assessments are Delinquent, 471 So.2d 191 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Van Harren v. Markevitch, 447 So.2d 332 (Fla. 3d DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 456 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1984); Fiber Crete Homes, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 315 So.2d 492 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975); see also Frisard v. Frisard (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (Case No. 85-1931, opinion filed July 2, 1986) ("[T]he failure to reserve jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs in a final order is a substantive, not a clerical, mistake."); Hunter v. Hunter, 487 So.2d 1160, 1161 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) ("The divestment of jurisdiction is a change in substance, and not merely a correction of an omission, and thus is not within the proper realm of a nunc pro tunc order."). The appeal of the final judgment for damages is dismissed; the Final Judgment for Injunctive Relief is reversed.