Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Oleida Duque
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledJuly 22, 2020
Docket3D19-1929
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 22, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1929
Lower Tribunal No. 16-23865
________________
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,
Appellant,
vs.
Oleida Duque,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Abby Cynamon,
Judge.
Aldridge | Pite, LLP, and Allegra Knopf, Zachary Ullman, and Jennifer
Travieso (Delray Beach), for appellant.
Oleida Duque, in proper person, precluded from oral argument.
Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY and HENDON, JJ.
EMAS, C.J.
In this appeal from an order denying Wells Fargo’s motion to amend the final
judgment, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), we reverse and
remand the trial court’s order, which determined the motion was untimely filed. The
record reveals that final judgment was entered on April 6, 2017. Wells Fargo’s
motions to amend the final judgment were filed November 6, 2017 and February 8,
2018, both within the one-year time limitation for filing a motion for relief from
judgment under rule 1.540(b)(1). The trial court erred in concluding that the motions
were not timely filed. 1
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the merits
of Wells Fargo’s amended motion to amend the final judgment. We express no
opinion on the merits of that motion.
Reversed and remanded.
1
The first motion to amend was denied without prejudice for Wells Fargo to file an
amended motion that included the specific total amount it sought to amend in the
final judgment. The amended motion was timely filed thereafter. It appears that the
trial court may have relied on a mistake contained in Wells Fargo’s amended motion,
which incorrectly stated that the final judgment was entered in 2015 (and which, if
true, would have rendered the motions untimely); however, the final judgment itself
was attached as an exhibit to the amended motion, and indicates on its face that it
was entered on April 6, 2017.
2