Eleven Mile Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida 34995, 193 So. 3d 1029

Borrower bought property and executed a note and mortgage that mistakenly described the parcel as the "Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4" ("Southeast") of Section 33. A later corrective deed described the parcel as the "Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4" ("Southwest").
Lender sued on the note and mortgage; complaint and attached mortgage repeatedly used the incorrect "Southeast" description.
Clerk’s defaults and a final judgment of foreclosure entered against Borrower on March 11, 2013; lender purchased the property. That judgment used the incorrect legal description.
Lender first filed a February 14, 2014 motion under the wrong rule (1.190) to vacate and to amend; that motion was denied. On July 30, 2014 lender filed an amended motion under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540 seeking to amend or vacate the final judgment to correct the legal description.
Trial court granted the amended motion citing rule 1.540(a), treating the error as a clerical/scrivener’s mistake, and entered an amended final judgment with the correct "Southwest" description. Borrower appealed.
Fourth DCA reversed, holding the amended 1.540 motion was untimely under subsection (b)(1), the court lacked jurisdiction, and the change was substantive (not a clerical correction) so not proper under rule 1.540(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was lender’s 1.540(b) motion timely?	Lender: relief available; prior February 2014 filing and later motion suffice.	Borrower: July 30, 2014 motion was after one-year limit from March 11, 2013 final judgment.	Held: Untimely under 1.540(b)(1); motion filed >1 year, so court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under (b).
Could the error be corrected as a clerical mistake under 1.540(a)?	Lender: incorrect word "Southeast" vs "Southwest" was a scrivener’s error correctable under (a).	Borrower: change is substantive (alters property description) and cannot be made under (a).	Held: Change was substantive; 1.540(a) cannot be used to alter the legal description.
Was the judgment void (allowing relief under 1.540(b)(4)) or merely voidable?	Lender: erroneous legal description rendered judgment void.	Borrower: error is voidable, not void; no exception to the one-year rule applies.	Held: Court followed precedent that such errors are voidable (not void); subsection (4) inapplicable to bypass timeliness.
Is absence of a hearing transcript fatal to review?	Lender: implied arguments at hearing supported court’s ruling.	Borrower: appellate review should be possible despite no transcript because hearing was non-evidentiary.	Held: Transcript unnecessary where hearing was non-evidentiary and involved legal argument only.

Segalis v. Roof Depot USA, LLC, 178 So. 3d 83 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (standard of review for rule 1.540 motions and when void judgments obligate vacation)
Rollet v. de Bizemont, 159 So. 3d 351 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (non-evidentiary hearing transcript not always required for appellate review)
Shahar v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 125 So. 3d 251 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (similar transcription principle for legal-argument hearings)
NAFH Nat’l Bank v. Aristizabal, 117 So. 3d 900 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (trial court loses jurisdiction to grant 1.540(b) relief after the limitations period absent an applicable exception)
Lorant v. Whitney Nat’l Bank, 162 So. 3d 244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (rule 1.540(a) cannot be used to make substantive changes to judgments)
Epstein v. Bank of Am., 162 So. 3d 159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (erroneous legal description renders judgment voidable, not void)