Background
Pro Max Investment Holdings leased commercial property to Equipment Sales of South Florida. After Equipment Sales failed to pay rent and did not respond to Pro Max’s eviction action, a clerk’s default and final judgment for removal were entered against it.
Equipment Sales first moved to vacate the judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b), asserting excusable neglect and arguing that Pro Max’s acceptance of rent waived eviction. The trial court denied relief for failure to establish excusable neglect or due diligence. Equipment Sales appealed but voluntarily dismissed that appeal. It later filed a second motion under rule 1.540(b)(5), contending that Pro Max’s post-judgment acceptance of rent, failure to obtain a writ of possession, and filing of another eviction action made continued enforcement inequitable. Equipment Sales conceded those arguments could have been raised in its first motion, and the trial court denied the second motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(5) permits review only of an order entered on an authorized and timely motion for relief from judgment. A successive rule 1.540 motion is not authorized when its grounds were known to the movant when the first motion was filed.
Because every fact supporting Equipment Sales’ second motion was known when it filed its first motion, the second motion was unauthorized. It also could not restart the appellate clock or create a new opportunity for review. Equipment Sales’ remedy was to pursue the appeal from the denial of its first motion, which it had voluntarily dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A party generally must present all known grounds for relief from a judgment in its first rule 1.540 motion.
- A successive rule 1.540 motion based on previously available grounds is not an authorized motion under rule 9.130(a)(5).
- Refiling for post-judgment relief cannot revive an expired appellate opportunity or restart the 30-day appellate period.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality of judgments and the jurisdictional limits governing appellate review of post-judgment orders. A litigant that loses its first rule 1.540 motion must timely pursue the available appeal rather than abandon it and attempt to obtain review through a successive motion based on facts or arguments already available.