My understanding is that your point was that you do not believe that pre-judgment interest should be included in the judgment.
This is subsidiary because I perfectly agree that the final judgment could have included pre-judgment interests. Practically, because this is an unjust enrichment case and there is controversy as to when the starting point should be, and nothing is specified in the pleadings, I am not sure that this starting point could be determined without any pleading.
My main point is that it didn't, subsidiarily, that the way they were calculated is violating FL Statutes, that they should not compound with post judgment interest in FL, and that a loan refund was also added erroneously (as i am not the lender) and with an incorrect amount.
The way I look at it is like passing through the customs with a drivers license when a passport is mandatory. It does not make a difference if I am good friends with the immigration guy. (kidding)
In Malone v. Percival, the 2nd DCA states:
"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 include
errors that affect the substance of a judgment, must be corrected within ten days
pursuant 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 Rule
1.540(a) are only 'errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and not
errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order.' Town
of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d 1162, 1164 (Fla. 1979) (quoting Keller v.
Belcher, 256 So. 2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)."
My main point is that it could have been decided by the final judgment without pleading, but it could not be amended without a hearing, following rule 1.530(g)
The situation created by the court when deeming my letter as motion to rehear and reconsider is very confusing.
First of all, this is not what it was meant for, it was meant to object to the entry of the amended final judgment based on scrivener's error, on the grounds that the amendments were no scriverner's errors but substantial modifications..
It was not requesting a hearing.
I was notified of the amended final judgment AFTER I wrote the letter.
The hearing request is on my motion to vacate the amended final judgment which I filed immediately after it was issued.
That motion is ignored or "shaded" by the deemed motion.
I have been trying to interpretate that bizarre deemed motion on and on.
My conclusion is that it is totally without any basis and looks like yet another denial of due process when I am deemed something I had never any intention of nor even any possibility to intend so.
However, as I see it, the functional part of that motion is that it provides the "missing" hearing to validate the amended final judgment, because the argument will be restricted about the pre-judgment interests and then re-issue a new judgment or even not.
This is why I want to file a motion on 1.540(b) for new evidence, excusable neglect, fraud and mistake of law, including many points of contention that I am working on, if they are valid and strong, of course, and next, if the motion to vacate can be filed, get an order on that motion that I will appeal, the botXXXXX XXXXXne is that this is not the only abnormality, there is a whole series.
I had to be hospitalized 3 months after my first motion to dismiss the case was granted. The order was leaving 20 days to amend and attach contracts, 4 months later, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint without the contracts (violating rule 1.130 FL Rules of Civ Proc) and without leave of court, we filed a motion to strike/dismiss on that, and it was denied (???) this is how the whole court case followed up.