Summary
The Third District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed the summary denial of George Evans’s amended motion for relief from a 2013 order. The court held that the motion was untimely, facially deficient, an attempt to relitigate previously available issues, and barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court properly summarily denied Evans's 2015 amended motion for relief from a 2013 order as untimely and facially deficient.
- Whether the amended motion was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine because the issues had been decided in a prior appeal.
Holdings
- The circuit court properly denied the amended motion because it was untimely, facially deficient, and sought to relitigate issues that were previously known and could have been raised when the original order was entered.
Key quotations
“When an appellate court has decided a question of law, the decision of the court becomes law of the case. This doctrine prevents reconsideration of all issues necessarily decided in the former appeal” (272 So. 3d at 440)
Factual background
The underlying dissolution case involved $300,000 in settlement proceeds that Evans's client was ordered to transfer into Evans's law firm trust account, followed by an order directing that $180,000 be deposited into the court registry. Evans did not comply and later acknowledged transferring the funds without authorization. He also failed to produce trust and bank records as ordered, was held in contempt, and was ordered to pay the former wife's attorney's fees and costs.
Procedural history
The underlying circuit court matter arose from dissolution proceedings involving the handling of funds held in Evans's law firm trust account. After prior orders concerning the funds, contempt, and attorney's fees and costs, Evans filed a 2015 amended motion seeking relief from a 2013 order. The circuit court summarily denied the motion as untimely, facially deficient, and an attempt to relitigate issues that had previously been known and could have been raised earlier. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed, additionally holding that the motion was barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine.