Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the denial of the appellants’ second motion to dismiss but reversed the amended default final judgment in a breach of contract action. The court held that entering the amended default final judgment was error because the second motion to dismiss was pending when the judgment was entered. The case was remanded for further proceedings, and the portion concerning the postjudgment motion under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 was dismissed as moot.
Holdings
- The trial court erred by entering the amended default final judgment while the appellants' second motion to dismiss was pending; the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
- The denial of the appellants' second motion to dismiss is affirmed.
- The portion of the appeal challenging the implicit denial of the Rule 1.540 postjudgment motion is dismissed as moot because reversal of the amended default final judgment renders that motion moot.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by entering an amended default final judgment while the appellants' second motion to dismiss was pending.
- Whether the trial court's denial of the appellants' second motion to dismiss should be affirmed.
- Whether the portion of the appeal challenging the implicit denial of the appellants' Rule 1.540 postjudgment motion should be dismissed as moot after reversal of the amended default final judgment.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (4)
- Sansbury v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 204 So. 3d 985, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)(followed)
- Lenhal Realty, Inc. v. Transamerica Com. Fin. Corp., 611 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(followed)
- Pierce v. Kroha, 200 So. 3d 241, 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)(followed)
- Osheroff v. Osheroff, 694 So. 2d 855, 855 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…