Navarro v. Castro
2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4907
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Parties entered into a stock purchase; defendant promised to pay for shares via installment note.
- Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of the promissory note; defendant counterclaimed for breach of the stock-purchase agreement.
- Parties settled; proposed final order of dismissal with prejudice directed insurance proceeds to plaintiff.
- Circuit court entered the dismissal order; shortly after, defendant moved to set aside alleging mutual mistake about insurance-policy value.
- The motion was heard on a non-evidentiary calendar; court denied based on lack of jurisdiction.
- On appeal, majority reverses, holds court had jurisdiction under Rule 1.540(b) and should have held an evidentiary hearing; dissent would limit relief to judgmental errors and argue no colorable claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court had jurisdiction to consider Rule 1.540(b) relief. | Plaintiff (plaintiff) argues lack of jurisdiction due to dismissal finality. | Defendant contends Rule 1.540(b) authorizes relief from a final order for mistake. | Court had jurisdiction to consider under Rule 1.540(b). |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the motion. | Plaintiff contends no colorable entitlement; no evidentiary hearing. | Defendant seeks evidentiary hearing for alleged mutual mistake. | Evidentiary hearing should be held; discovery permissible. |
| Whether the motion stated a colorable ground for relief under Rule 1.540(b). | Plaintiff claimed mutual mistake about insurance value. | Defendant argues the claim is non-judgmental or lacks colorable basis. | Motion pled grounds under Rule 1.540(b); colorable entitlement exists. |
Key Cases Cited
- Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Vasta, 360 So.2d 68 (Fla. 1978) (voluntary dismissal does not deprive jurisdiction to relief under Rule 1.540(b))
- Miller v. Fortune Insurance Co., 484 So.2d 1221 (Fla. 1986) (clarifies judgmental mistake not relief under Rule 1.540(b))
- Shampaine Indus., Inc. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 411 So.2d 364 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) (Rule 1.540(b) may provide relief to all litigants with grounded grounds)
- Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Haecherl, 56 So.3d 892 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (courts may grant relief under Rule 1.540(b) despite related jurisdictional issues)
- River Bridge Corp. v. Am. Somax Ventures, 76 So.3d 986 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (evidentiary hearing generally required if colorable entitlement to relief exists)
- Dynasty Express Corp. v. Weiss, 675 So.2d 235 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (permissible discovery before evidentiary hearing when colorable entitlement asserted)