According to Florida Rule of Family Law Procedure 12.540(b), a party has the right to petition the court to overturn a court order on various grounds, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, void judgment, or equitable reasons. However, there are specific time limits for filing such motions, except in cases involving fraudulent financial affidavits in marital or paternity cases.

Recently, the timing of a motion and the hearing regarding became a focal point in the case of Brooks v. Brooks, 340 So. 3d 543 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)

The case stemmed from a divorce in 2003. Nearly a year later, the former husband initiated a motion to set aside the final judgment, citing an error in survivorship benefits outlined in the qualified domestic relations order issued the previous year. However, no timely hearing was pursued on this motion. More than a decade later, the former husband attempted to reopen the case and schedule a hearing on the motion he had filed in 2005. The former wife sought dismissal of the motion, which was granted, leading to an appeal by the former husband.

In its ruling, the appellate court acknowledged the former husband’s timely filing of the motion but highlighted his failure to pursue a hearing within a reasonable time, rendering his request untimely. The court emphasized the importance of upholding the finality of judgments and limiting the court’s jurisdiction, particularly in cases where such motions are filed after significant delays.

Furthermore, the court found no error in the trial court’s determination that the former husband had not acted within a reasonable time to bring his amended motion under subsection (5). It noted that the former husband had been aware of the alleged mistake since 2004 but had not sought resolution until 2020. Additionally, there were no new or changed circumstances presented in his motion, and the issues raised were not novel but had been known to him before the judgment was issued.

The appeals court stated, “The trial court correctly recognized that an attempt to vacate a final judgment pursuant to 1.540(b)(1) after sixteen years would inherently frustrate the rule’s purpose in finality of judgments and limiting a trial court’s jurisdiction.” The court further held “We find no error in the trial court’s determination that the former husband did not bring his amended motion to vacate under subsection (5) within a reasonable time. The former husband knew of the alleged mistake in 2004, yet did not seek resolution on his motion until 2020. Significantly, the former husband did not allege any new or changed post-judgment circumstances in his written motion, nor does the record reveal any such circumstances. Quite the opposite, the record reveals the former husband was aware of the alleged grounds raised within one year of the final judgment and failed to seek resolution on his motion for over sixteen years. The former husband’s motion to vacate also unequivocally provides he had a chance to litigate his survivorship benefits before judgment and these benefits were not new issues that arose after judgment.”

Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, underscoring the importance of timely action and adherence to procedural rules in seeking to challenge court orders.

It is important to have a knowledgeable family law attorney or paternity lawyer assisting you in obtaining court orders. Call the Martindale AV Rated attorney Rhoden at Rhoden Law Group for a complimentary consultation or email using the contact form on this site. 321 549 3162 call/text the office.