Miller v. Fortune Ins. Co.
1986 Fla. LEXIS 1696, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 85, 484 So. 2d 1221 (1986)
Rule of Law:
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) grants trial courts limited jurisdiction to correct clerical or substantive errors in voluntary notices of dismissal, as such dismissals constitute 'proceedings' under the rule, but does not allow relief for attorneys' tactical or judgmental mistakes.
Facts:
- Miller's attorney filed a lawsuit against Fortune Insurance Co. in county court.
- Miller's attorney intended to file a voluntary dismissal of the suit "without prejudice."
- Due to a secretarial error, Miller's attorney mistakenly filed a voluntary notice of dismissal designating the dismissal as "with prejudice."
- The attorney and his secretary later provided affidavits explaining that their standard office procedure was to prepare voluntary dismissals "without prejudice" and that the "with prejudice" designation was an inadvertent typing error the attorney failed to catch.
- Approximately eleven months after the dismissal was filed, Miller moved the trial court to strike the words "with prejudice" from the dismissal and substitute "without prejudice."
Procedural Posture:
- Miller's attorney filed a voluntary motion to dismiss a suit against Fortune Insurance Co. in county court.
- Eleven months later, Miller moved the county court to strike "with prejudice" from the dismissal and substitute "without prejudice."
- The county court trial judge summarily denied Miller's motion.
- Miller appealed the county court's denial to the circuit court, which is the intermediate appellate court for county court decisions.
- The circuit court affirmed the trial judge's decision.
- Miller filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Second District Court of Appeal.
- The Second District Court of Appeal denied Miller's petition for writ of certiorari and affirmed the county court's order, holding that the trial court was divested of jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) to correct a clerical error in a voluntary notice of dismissal filed "with prejudice" to change it to "without prejudice"?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes, a trial court has jurisdiction under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) to correct clerical substantive errors in a voluntary notice of dismissal, as such a dismissal is considered a 'proceeding' within the scope of the rule. The Court clarified that while it adheres to the principle that trial courts should not relieve attorneys of their tactical mistakes, as established in Randle-Eastern Ambulance Service, Inc. v. Vasta (Randle), that case's outcome was based on a judgmental error, not a clerical one. The true rationale in Randle was that judgmental error by the plaintiff is not the kind of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect contemplated by Rule 1.540(b). The Court explicitly states that a voluntary notice of dismissal is a 'proceeding' under Rule 1.540(b), meaning it falls within the limited circumstances where the rule allows a court to exercise jurisdiction to correct errors. This interpretation aligns with the purpose of procedural rules to further justice, not frustrate it. The decision of the Second District Court of Appeal, which had denied relief, is quashed, and the case is remanded for a hearing to determine if the facts establish mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect under Rule 1.540(b).
Concurring - Ehrlich, J.
Justice Ehrlich concurred specially, agreeing with the majority's result but arguing that the Court should have explicitly receded from the jurisdictional reasoning of Randle. He stated that Randle's logic, which asserted that a voluntary dismissal completely divests the court of jurisdiction and makes Rule 1.540(b) inapplicable, is fallacious. He believed that Randle created an exception to Rule 1.540 that is not present in the rule itself and expressed apprehension that the flawed jurisdictional ruling in Randle might continue to be applied if not expressly abandoned.
Dissenting - Overton, J.
Justice Overton dissented, stating that he would adhere to the holding in Randle. He maintained that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action without a court order, this act completely removes the court's power to enter any further order, thus divesting it of jurisdiction. He emphasized that the act of dismissal is by the lawyer, not the court, and this act should rigidly remove the court's ability to exercise judicial discretion or adjudicate the cause in any way.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) by distinguishing between correctable clerical errors and uncorrectable tactical mistakes in voluntary dismissals. It limits the rigid jurisdictional interpretation of Randle to instances of judgmental error, ensuring that courts retain limited jurisdiction to rectify non-strategic, genuine mistakes. This decision promotes equitable outcomes by preventing procedural rules from frustrating justice due to simple oversights, while still holding attorneys accountable for strategic decisions. It has broad implications for how motions for relief from judgments or orders are evaluated, particularly regarding dismissals, by focusing on the nature of the error rather than a blanket loss of jurisdiction.
