Romero v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 209 So. 3d 633

Wells Fargo obtained a final judgment of foreclosure against Anabel Romero on August 6, 2012 after Romero and her attorney failed to appear at the scheduled nonjury trial.
On March 30, 2015 (more than 1.5 years later), Romero filed a motion under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(3) to vacate the foreclosure judgment, alleging fraud upon the court.
Romero alleged Wells Fargo’s counsel misrepresented to the presiding judge that she and her attorney were not present when the case was called, causing the default.
The circuit court held a hearing and, on October 29, 2015, denied Romero’s motion without explanation.
The Second District considered whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the untimely Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion and whether the court’s denial should stand or be treated as an untimely motion dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could consider a Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion alleging fraud upon the court filed more than one year after judgment	Romero: alleged counsel’s misrepresentation amounted to extrinsic fraud warranting relief despite delay	Wells Fargo: judgment is final; Rule 1.540(b)(3)’s one-year limit is jurisdictional and bars untimely relief	The court held the one-year time limit is jurisdictional; because Romero filed after one year, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits and could only dismiss the motion as untimely

Bank One Nat'l Ass'n v. Batronie, 884 So. 2d 346 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (one-year Rule 1.540(b)(3) limit is jurisdictional and cannot be extended)
Bane v. Bane, 775 So. 2d 938 (Fla. 2000) (Rule 1.540 provides narrow post-judgment relief but requires compliance with its time limit)
Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co., 484 So. 2d 1221 (Fla. 1986) (court’s limited jurisdiction to determine whether it may proceed under Rule 1.540)