Office of the Attorney Gen. v. Nationwide Pools, Inc., 270 So. 3d 406

The OAG sued Nationwide Pools, Inc. for deceptive trade practices and a credit-card surcharge, seeking injunctive and equitable relief, restitution, penalties, and fees.
After Nationwide closed and formed National Construction Group, OAG amended the complaint to add the new company and obtained an ex parte temporary injunction and asset freeze; defendants did not timely challenge the ex parte order.
Corporate defendants failed to answer; default judgment entered after limited appearances. Individual defendants appeared pro se, litigated liability, and eventually negotiated and accepted consent judgments resolving damages.
Seventeen months later defendants sought disqualification of the presiding judge based on alleged ex parte proceedings; judge granted the motion and a new judge held a three-day evidentiary hearing.
The new judge vacated the consent judgments under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(4), ruling defendants were denied due process by ex parte hearings and that the amended complaint failed to state a claim because it relied in part on a statute the Eleventh Circuit held unconstitutional.
OAG appealed; the district court reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate the consent judgments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (OAG)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consent judgments are void for alleged prior ex parte hearings denying due process	Consent judgments valid; defendants waived pre-judgment defects by consenting	Consent judgments void because ex parte hearings on the docket deprived them of notice and hearing	Defendants waived due process claims by consenting; cannot vacate consent judgments on that basis
Whether a judgment is void if based on a statute later held unconstitutional	Judgment stands; statute was legally enacted so judgment is voidable not void	Judgment void because it relied on a statute the Eleventh Circuit declared unconstitutional	Judgment voidable, not void; Rule 1.540(b) permits vacatur only of void judgments, so vacatur on this ground was erroneous
Whether consent precludes collateral attack under Rule 1.540(b)	Consent forecloses collateral attack and appellate review is the proper remedy	Consent does not cure constitutional defects in proceedings	Court held consent bars collateral attack on merits-based defects and process complaints that occurred prior to consent
Proper scope of Rule 1.540(b) relief for judgments alleged void for lack of jurisdiction or due process	Vacatur allowed only if judgment is truly void (no jurisdiction or denial of notice/hearing)	Broader relief sought under 1.540 for alleged procedural irregularities	Court reiterates narrow scope: only jurisdictional or complete deprivation of due process makes judgment void

Tannenbaum v. Shea, 133 So.3d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA) (distinguishing void judgments from mere errors or irregularities)
Shiver v. Wharton, 9 So.3d 687 (Fla. 4th DCA) (due process requires notice and real opportunity to be heard)
Krueger v. Ponton, 6 So.3d 1258 (Fla. 5th DCA) (errors or irregularities do not render judgment void)
Swift & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 311 (U.S. Supreme Court) (historical limits on setting aside consent decrees; limited grounds for relief)
D.H. Overmyer Co. of Ohio v. Frick Co., 405 U.S. 174 (U.S. Supreme Court) (due process rights may be waived by consent)
In re Fredcris, Inc., 101 So.2d 49 (Fla. 3d DCA) (one may not seek review of a judgment entered with consent)
Walling v. Miller, 138 F.2d 629 (8th Cir.) (consent waives errors going to the merits; motion to vacate is limited)
O'Hearn v. O'Hearn, 506 A.2d 78 (R.I. Supreme Court) (consenting party waives defenses related to the subject matter)
Dana's R.R. Supply v. Attorney Gen., Fla., 807 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir.) (statute at issue held to violate First Amendment)
Green v. State, 839 So.2d 748 (Fla. 2d DCA) (distinguishes void judgments based on unlawfully enacted statutes from voidable judgments based on statutes later found unconstitutional)
B.H. v. State, 645 So.2d 987 (Fla. 1994) (cited for distinction between void and voidable judgments)