Florida 1st DCA Distinguishes Between Amending a Final Judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(a) and 1.540(b) as to Mistakes
In Lorant v. Whitney National Bank , decided February 24, 2015, Florida’s First District Court of Appeal considered whether Florida’s Rules of Civil Procedure provide for the ability to correct “clerical mistakes” nearly three years after the entry of a final judgment. The court held that amending the order to clear up the litigation status of the parties was not a “clerical mistake” as anticipated in Rule 1.540(a).
Specifically, Rule 1.540(a) allows for any “clerical mistakes” or errors in a judgment to be corrected for—as the First District put it—an “indefinite period of time.” On the other hand, Rule 1.540(b) allows for the correction of “mistakes” or “inadvertence” for a “reasonable time” not to exceed one year after the court enters judgment.
In Lorant , the final deficiency judgment stemmed from a foreclosure action in Florida. The trial court had entered the judgment against the appellant and two other named defendants. The bank tried to have an Alabama court domesticate the judgment as to the appellant, but the Alabama court refused to domesticate the judgment as it consider it “non-final” under Alabama law (even though it was “final” under Florida law. To remedy this problem, the bank returned to Florida in 2014 in hopes of having the court modify the judgment to reflect that the appellant was the only remaining defendant, as was required by Alabama law. The bank filed a motion citing Rule 1.540(a), arguing the Florida court could correct this “clerical mistake” nearly three years later. The trial court granted the motion, correcting and supplementing the original judgment. An appeal followed.
Reviewing under an abuse of discretion standard, the First District found that the judgment could not be amended under Rule 1.540(a). The court held that correcting and supplementing the judgment to address the litigation status of all the party defendants was a substantive change, and not an “accidental slip or omission permitted to be corrected under” Rule 1.540(a). The court said mistakes or errors in substance of what is decided by the judgment must be corrected pursuant to Rule 1.540(b). Therefore, because the motion was filed nearly three years after the entry of the judgment (rather than within the one year allowed by the Rule), it was barred by the reasonable time limitations of Rule 1.540(b).
This case clearly demonstrates the narrow scope of “clerical mistakes” as to allow a judgment to be modified indefinitely. Under the First District’s analysis, any mistake that would change the effect or impact of the judgment would likely be considered a substantive change and subject to the “reasonable” time limitation in Rule 1.540(b).