JOSEPH MANZARO v. LINDA D'ALLESSANDRO, 229 So. 3d 843

In 2012 D'Alessandro obtained an agreed final order in Broward County giving her temporary custody of the parties' minor child; Manzaro later filed multiple motions in Broward seeking relief from that order.
In September 2016 Manzaro (through counsel Guillermo J. Farinas, Jr.) filed a complaint in Palm Beach Circuit Court asking equitable relief from the Broward order for fraud and lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Palm Beach court dismissed the complaint as improper; this Court affirmed the dismissal. The merits of the underlying fraud claim were not reached.
The appellate court issued an order to show cause whether sanctions were warranted and considered the parties’ responses and fee motion. Manzaro’s filings included an amended response that attacked the appellee and requested fees against her.
The court held Manzaro’s filing was frivolous: untimely under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b), not maintainable in a different circuit, and barred by principles of comity and res judicata given prior Broward proceedings.
The Fourth DCA granted appellee’s motion for appellate attorney’s fees, sanctioned Manzaro and his counsel, and remanded for determination of the fee amount to be paid equally by client and counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Manzaro)	Defendant's Argument (D'Alessandro)	Held
Timeliness of fraud-on-the-court relief under Rule 1.540(b)	Rule 1.540 relief is available for alleged fraud	The complaint was filed more than one year after the order; untimely under Rule 1.540(b)	Dismissal affirmed: relief under Rule 1.540(b) was untimely
Proper forum/court for relief from an order of another circuit	The claim should be treated as an independent action that can be heard in Palm Beach	A fraud-on-the-court claim must be brought in the court where the alleged fraud occurred (Broward)	Court held independent action cannot properly be brought in a different circuit here; Palm Beach lacked basis to grant such relief
Effect of parallel or prior Broward proceedings (comity / res judicata)	Manzaro proceeded in Palm Beach despite pending and prior Broward attempts	Comity requires deference to pending Broward proceedings; res judicata bars reassertion after prior final denials	Court found comity and res judicata (and pending Broward matters) precluded the Palm Beach suit
Sanctions and fee-shifting for filing frivolous appeal	Manzaro disputed appellee’s fee request and sought sanctions against appellee	Appellee sought appellate attorney’s fees and sanctions under §57.105, Fla. R. App. P. 9.410, and the court’s inherent authority	Court awarded appellate fees and costs as sanctions against Manzaro and his counsel; remanded to set amount to be split equally between client and counsel

Fla. Evergreen Foliage v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 336 F. Supp. 2d 1239 (S.D. Fla. 2004) (a fraud-on-the-court claim under Rule 1.540 must be brought in the court where the alleged fraud occurred)
Cobourn v. Cobourn, 436 So. 2d 284 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (supporting limits on bringing Rule 1.540 fraud claims in a different court)
Chewning v. Ford Motor Co., 35 F. Supp. 2d 487 (D.S.C. 1998) (federal decisions supporting forum limitation for independent actions attacking judgments)
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Estate of Neu, 133 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (comity supports deferring to pending proceedings in the court that first acquired jurisdiction)
Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (res judicata bars repetitious claims after final adjudication)
Waddington v. Baptist Med. Ctr. of Beaches, Inc., 78 So. 3d 114 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (attorney’s fees and sanctions may be imposed for frivolous appeals)
Visoly v. Sec. Pac. Credit Corp., 768 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (authority on awarding fees for frivolous appellate conduct)
Molinos Del S.A. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 947 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (federal Rule 60 case law is persuasive in interpreting Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540)
Casteel v. Maddalena, 109 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (same: resort to federal Rule 60 jurisprudence when construing Rule 1.540)