Hi Lucy, while I am reviewing the 1.540 (b), I have another difficult question. I don't know if you remember, but when Plaintiff sent his letter to the court alleging a scrivener's error and changing in fact the substance of the judgment with a proposed amended judgment, i posted a letter to object after asking multiple advices. The letter says a a conclusion : For all of the foregoing reasons , I am objecting to the entry of the proposed Amended Judgment submitted by the Plaintiff. Immediately after I had posted the letter to the judge's box, I received by mail the amended final judgment that was the exact same document sent by plaintiff now signed by the court. So I immediately filed a motion to vacate and next a motion for a new trial. To my greatest surprise, I was next notified by mail that the judge was deeming my correspondence motion to rehear and reconsideration. Furthermore, after the hearing was set on the calendar, the judge issued a new order setting the hearing of the deemed motion and issued an order denying my motion for a New Trial 1.530 Now, when I read the article of the FL Bar that I am going to attach here, i am very confused as to the regularity of all this based on various consideration that I will explain next. To begin with, the FL Bar article says that there can be only one motion 1.530. So the judge denied my motion 1.530, ignored my motion based on 1.540 (b) to vacate the amended final judgment, and deemed my letter motion for reconsideration and rehear, when it was just an objection to the entry of the amended final judgment based on an alleged scrivener's error, that was not a scrivener's error when it results in changing the substance. So, to begin with, we have 2 motions 1.530, a faulty situation apparently, and that is my first question. Then, I am very confused as to what could be decided at the hearing of the deemed motion. Typically, will the court, AT THE NEXT HEARING of the deemed motion, grant or deny a new trial re-hearing If the reconsideration is granted, what will be the remedy or the relief and how is it going to be materialized ? New final judgment ? Addendum to amended final judgment modifying some terms ? The discussion about my motion 1.540(b) needs to be in another question, to simplify here
the Plaintiff's letter attaching the Proposed Amended Judgment was treated as a Motion to Amend and your letter was a Motion in Opposition to that motion.I am confused here and questioning very seriously the validity of all this: Plaintiff has an attorney, why would the attorney not file a regular motion to amend based on 1.530 (g) invoking 1.540(a) SCRIVENER'S ERROR as described in many law cases reviewed by the FL DCA's.Note :The letter of plaintiff's counsel is asking to enter a new judgment based on scrivener's errorIn particular, the situation here is very similar to N.Arnold Malone v. Percival DCA of FL 2nd DistrictWith respect to the addendum to the final judgment of dissolution,however, we conclude that reversal is required because the addendum–which purports to correct scrivener's errors–in fact constitutes an unauthorized amendment of the finaljudgment......The trial court sua sponte included in the addendum the following provision ..."A trial court may correct a clerical error 'at any time on its own initiative'pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a), but judicial errors, which includeerrors that affect the substance of a judgment, must be corrected within ten dayspursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.530[(g)], or by appellate review." Bolton v.Bolton, 787 So. 2d 237, 238-39 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). As stated in Byers v. Callahan,848 So. 2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), "[t]he 'clerical mistakes' referred to by Rule1.540(a) are only 'errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and noterrors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order.' Townof Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1979) (quoting Keller v.Belcher, 256 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)."The provisions in the addendum to the final judgmentthus were unauthorized under rule 1.540(a), and the addendum order of the trial court istherefore reversed.Affirmed in part and reversed in part.There is a whole array of DCA case reviews in that appeal showing a very constant opinion of the DCA'sSo here I am totally confused, because the DCA considers in such situation thta the Court has moved sua sponte to amend based on 1.540(a) scrivener's error as was alleged by plaintiff.
which requires that you have time to respond and possibly a hearing.
I follow you here, and I follow you on the letter-motion assimilation too, since the court has the authority to amend on a scrivener's error.I follow you also that the judge is not likely to change anything, nor listen to anything else than a mere discussion about the changes themselves.However, I am totally confused here about the followings:If the judge beleives he did right by issuing the amended FJ without a prior hearing, why would he not simply let things go and issue a final order denying my 2 motions ?This comes down to one question : can a motion 1.530(g) to amend a judgment be granted without a hearing ?
Ok, so if I understand well, a judge can change a final judgment based on a motion 1.530(g) of a party and the opposing party has a certain time to oppose (which is how many days ? 10 days ?) and if no opposition, the amended FJ is issued ?
Ok, but my question is precisely the reverse. Can a judge grant a motion 1.530(g) without a hearing ?
Ok, so let me summarize this thread and the mixture of confusion and errors we are confronted with.... if I am correct, just answer by yes or no:1) the letter of the plaintiff's counsel can be interpretated as a motion, however it's logically a "motion" or a request forthe Court to issue a new FJ sua sponte based on 1.540(a) scrivener's error as it claims so and the court issued a new judgment ?2)If that plaintiff's letter would be construed as a motion based on 1.530(g) it would be void because too late. (more than 10 days after FJ). ?3) Judge is deeming my letter a motion to rehear and reconsider if the entry of amended FJ was right or not and without specifying pursuant to what rule, but obviously it can be only under 1.530(a) ? ( very important for me to know, I will have a follow up NEW question ).4) If the information of the FL Bar article is correct, there can be only one motion under 1.530. Does the judge have the authority to deem my letter motion under 1.530 when there is already such motion in the docket ?5) Judge denies my 1.530 motion AFTER issuing the deem motion order, so we have a problem here too if FL Bar is correct, when TWO 1.530 motions were co-existing ?6) However, the order is void for a multiple and more or less arguable reasons, more particularly one reason : the motion to rehear MUST be timely, 10 days as per 1.530 (b) and my letter was received 19 days after the FJ was recorded and dated 18 days after. ?7) The title of the order is "deeming.... correspondence .... motion for reconsideration and rehearing "8)The amended FJ is a final order, and there is no such motion for reconsideration on a final judgment in the FL Rules of Court?I have seen in the local newspapers that that judge has made 2 errors in criminal lawsuits... with the number of errors here and elsewhere, I am astound. Final question :However, here, my feeling is that the judge believes that a re-hearing is necessary to validate the amendments, otherwise the judgment could be voided with an appeal. What do you think ?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).