Charolette L. Alexander v. North Florida Construction Builders, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company

Summary

The Florida First District Court of Appeal affirmed both a foreclosure judgment based on a construction lien and a later order denying relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4). The court held that the appellant’s default admitted the relevant allegations and that alleged defects in the lien were defenses that should have been raised before the original judgment, not through a post-judgment voidness motion. The court also addressed the procedural distinction between appeals from an original final judgment and a subsequent post-judgment relief order.

Holdings

1. An appeal from an original final judgment and an appeal from a subsequent final order granting or denying relief from that judgment are distinct proceedings; ordinarily, review of the subsequent order must be invoked by filing a new notice of appeal that attaches the order being appealed.
2. The scope of review of a subsequent final order granting or denying post-judgment relief is limited to errors arising after the original judgment that adversely contributed to the later order; it does not permit the appellant to resurrect alleged errors that were forfeited or should have been raised in the appeal from the original judgment.
3. A default admits the truth of the complaint's definite and certain allegations and fair factual inferences, leaving the defaulted party able to contest only the legal basis for the plaintiff's recovery and the amount of recovery.
4. Rule 1.540(b)(4) does not permit a judgment to be set aside as void merely because the trial court allegedly erred in determining facts or law, including the validity of an underlying construction lien, when the court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the appellate court could review the denial of Alexander's post-judgment Rule 1.540(b) motion without a new notice of appeal.
2. Whether Alexander could use the appeal from the post-judgment order to raise alleged defects in the construction lien and contract that existed before the original foreclosure judgment and had not been pleaded or preserved.
3. Whether the trial court erred by denying the Rule 1.540(b)(4) motion without a hearing when the motion alleged that the underlying construction lien and contract were void.

Disposition

affirmed