From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Newell v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 24, 2001
789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Opinion

Case No. 1D99-4569

Opinion filed July 24, 2001.

An appeal from Circuit Court for Leon County. Terry P. Lewis, Judge.

Michael Newell, Pro Se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Caryl S. Kilinski, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


The appellant challenges an order by which the trial court denied a Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment. In this motion the appellant indicated that he had received a misdated copy of the judgment and that this frustrated his ability to timely appeal therefrom. The appellant asked the court to vacate and then reenter the prior order, so as to preserve his right to appeal. Although the court found that the order in the court file was properly dated, cases such as Griffin v. Florida Parole Commission, 727 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), and Gibson v. Buice, 381 So.2d 349 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), suggest that such relief should be afforded under rule 1.540(b) when a party does not receive a copy of the order as entered by the court. The appellant's motion is thus facially sufficient and may warrant relief if the allegations therein are established as accurate and true. The appealed order is therefore reversed and the case is remanded.

ALLEN, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.


Summaries of

Newell v. Moore

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Jul 24, 2001
789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Case details for

Newell v. Moore

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL NEWELL, Appellant, v. MICHAEL MOORE, F.D.O.C., Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Jul 24, 2001

Citations

789 So. 2d 538 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Citing Cases

Waters v. Childers

A party can seek relief under rule 1.540(b) when he or she does not receive a copy of an order entered by the…

Newell v. Moore

In that appeal this court determined that the appellant had made a facially sufficient claim under Florida…