Casteel v. Maddalena
109 So. 3d 1252
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Casteel appeals an order granting relief from judgment in a bifurcated negligence action with liability split 55% Casteel, 45% Maddalena.
- Maddalena moved for relief under Florida Rule 1.540(b)(2) based on newly discovered evidence from Lopez’s testimony about roadway paving.
- Lopez testified the road was freshly paved the day before the accident; later verification showed paving occurred 10–21 days prior.
- The trial court granted relief from judgment on grounds of fraud under Rule 1.540(b)(3) without a sua sponte evidentiary hearing and without notice to the parties.
- Maddalena did not allege fraud by Casteel or Casteel’s counsel; the court’s finding of client-authored testimony was not supported by the record.
- This Court reverses and remands for proceedings conforming to Rule 1.540 and due diligence requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Rule 1.540(b)(3) applicable here? | Maddalena contends fraud by Casteel’s witness; argues rule 1.540(b)(3) should apply. | Casteel did not participate in fraud; no misconduct by adversary or counsel shown. | Not applicable; no fraud by adversary or counsel proven. |
| If applicable, must an evidentiary hearing be held? | Fraud allegations require a hearing to assess credibility. | N/A since not applicable. | Evidentiary hearing required when fraud is clearly alleged. |
| Was a due diligence analysis required for newly discovered evidence under Rule 1.540(b)(2)? | Movant satisfies due diligence requirements for new evidence. | Due diligence analysis may be unnecessary where fraud asserted. | Remand to perform due diligence analysis if Rule 1.540(b)(2) is considered. |
| Did the trial court err in treating the motion as Rule 1.540(b)(3) without notice or a hearing? | The court acted sua sponte on mischaracterized grounds. | Court’s reasoning should be permissible under the record. | Error; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosenthal v. Ford, 443 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (requires evidentiary hearing for fraud allegations under 1.540(b)(3))
- Dynasty Express Corp. v. Weiss, 675 So.2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (fraud/misconduct allegations trigger hearing requirement)
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So.2d 487 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (colorable entitlement to relief may require hearing)
- Novastar Mortg., Inc. v. Bucknor, 69 So.3d 959 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reversible error for failure to conduct required hearing)
- McDonald v. Pickens, 544 So.2d 261 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989) (no due diligence required when adverse party knowingly presents false testimony)
- Roberto v. Allstate Ins. Co., 457 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (no due diligence required where false testimony knowingly used)
- Rodriguez v. Mitchell, 252 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2001) (fraud by witness not adverse party; 60(b)(3) comparison)
- U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Paiz, 68 So.3d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (de novo review on pure questions of law)
- Mourning v. Ballast Nedam Constr., Inc., 964 So.2d 889 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (de novo review for pure questions of law; 1.540 context)