Powers v. ITT Financial Services Corp.

4 Citing cases

  1. Samoilova v. Loginov

    330 So. 3d 1041 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    of setting aside that judgment under Rule 1.540." Powers v. ITT Fin. Servs. Corp., 662 So. 2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Paladin Props., 952 So. 2d at 562 ; see also Schlesinger v. Chem. Bank, 707 So. 2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that a successor judge has the authority to vacate a final judgment entered by a judge who had been disqualified after the rendition of the final judgment).

  2. Sterling Factors v. U.S. Bank

    968 So. 2d 658 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 45 times
    Holding circuit court has jurisdiction to set aside or reconsider foreclosure judgment upon proper motion after foreclosure sale

    However, numerous cases have reviewed circuit court decisions doing just that, without any indicia that the circuit court might have acted without jurisdiction. See, e.g., Cicoria v. Gazi, 901 So.2d 282 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005); Powers v. ITT Fin. Servs. Corp., 662 So.2d 1343 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). We therefore conclude that section 702.07 cannot be interpreted as depriving a circuit court of jurisdiction to set aside or reconsider a foreclosure judgment upon a proper motion once a foreclosure sale has been held. If the circuit court denied Sterling's motion for relief from judgment on this ground, the court erred.

  3. Paladin Properties v. Family Investment Enterprises

    952 So. 2d 560 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 14 times
    In Paladin Properties v. Family Investment Enterprises, 952 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), the appellant argued that the successor judge erred in considering the rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate a default final judgment because the motion to vacate should have been heard by the predecessor judge.

    " Batista v. Batista, 553 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). Essentially, the successor judge is not reconsidering the merits of the predecessor judge's rulings but is instead ruling "on the appropriateness of setting aside that judgment under Rule 1.540." Powers v. ITT Fin, Servs. Corp., 662 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Here, Family Investment's motion to set aside the default judgment is exactly the type of motion that the supreme court has explicitly held may be considered by a successor judge.

  4. Dept. of Children v. J.J.E

    953 So. 2d 659 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 1 times

    In fact, the law is exactly to the contrary. Tingle v. Dade County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 245 So.2d 76, 77-78 (Fla. 1971); Powers v. ITT Fin. Servs. Corp., 662 So.2d 1343, 1345 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Batista v. Batista, 553 So.2d 1281, 1282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). When the department seeks to terminate parental rights, its obligation to diligently search for the parents to give them proper notice of the proceedings is paramount. Due process of law should never be disregarded in favor of expediency, especially when fundamental rights are at stake.