1.540 Relief from Judgment, Decrees or Orders

(a) Clerical Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments, decrees, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time on its own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders. During the pendency of an appeal such mistakes may be so corrected before the record on appeal is docketed in the appellate court, and thereafter while the appeal is pending may be so corrected with leave of the appellate court.

(b) Mistakes; Inadvertence; Excusable Neglect; Newly Discovered Evidence; Fraud; etc. On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party’s legal representative from a final judgment, decree, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing; (3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party; (4) that the judgment or decree is void; or (5) that the judgment or decree has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment or decree upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment or decree should have prospective application. The motion shall be filed within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than 1 year after the judgment, decree, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this subdivision does not affect the finality of a judgment or decree or suspend its operation. This rule does not limit the power of a court to entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, decree, order, or proceeding or to set aside a judgment or decree for fraud upon the court.

Writs of coram nobis, coram vobis, audita querela, and bills of review and bills in the nature of a bill of review are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment or decree shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action.

7 thoughts on “1.540 Relief from Judgment, Decrees or Orders

  1. Pingback: Challenger Investment Group, LC v. Jones, et. al., 34 Fla. L. Wkly. D1990 (Fla. 3d DCA Sept. 30 2009) | Florida Rules Decisions Reporter

  2. Pingback: ROBERT WHITNEY, D.C. d/b/a 127th Street Intracoastal Chiropractic Center vs. A AVENTURA CHIROPRACTIC CARE CENTER, INC. ET AL, 34 Fla. L. Wkly D2186b (3d DCA Oct. 21, 2009) | Florida Rules Decisions Reporter

  3. Pingback: Wells Fargo Bank v. Conaway, No. 09-000145 (Fla. 6th Cir. Jan. 11, 2010) | Florida Rules Decisions Reporter

  4. Pingback: Record Evidence Did Not Support Finding of Fraud on the Court – Ford v. Stimpson | Florida Rules Decisions Reporter

  5. Pingback: After One Year, Judgment Can Only Be Set Aside for Extrinsic Fraud | Florida Rules Decisions Reporter

  6. Dustin Burke

    I’m not an attorney, but I found this in regards to relief from orders over a year old concerning Rule 1.540(b) “Relief from a void judgment may be granted at any time.” Shiver v. Wharton, 9 So. 3d 687 (Fla 4th DCA 2009)

    Reply
  7. Brian Willis, Esq. Post author

    How to Set Aside a Florida Judgment – Vacating or Removing a Judgment in Florida – When a Florida Judgment Can Be Changed after Final Judgment in a Foreclosure Case.

    …there are situations in foreclosure cases in Florida where a final foreclosure judgment has been vacated (removed, set aside). For example, in Heck v. Bank Liberty, 86 So.3d 1281 (Fla. 1 DCA 2012) a soon to be ex-wife was served at another address with the borrower’s Complaint and Summons and the Florida appellate court nixed the foreclosure judgment. Additionally, under Florida Rule 1.540, a Florida appellate court vacated a trial court’s foreclosure judgment because “excusable neglect” coupled with the Broward County home owner’s showing of a “meritorious defense” in Acosta v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, 88 So.3d 415 (Fla. 4 DCA 2012)…

    Reply

Leave a Reply