With trial court dockets packed and limited time for hearings, Florida courts will sometimes seek to streamline the process by denying motions without hearings. However, when it comes to motion to vacate judgments, Florida law frequently requires an evidentiary hearing, which provides an opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence in support of relief from the judgment. This article provides a brief note on case law underlying this concept. If you have questions about relief from judgements, vacating judgments, setting aside judgments, or challenging judgments, please contact Bernhard Law Firm at 786-871-3349, abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com, www.bernhardlawfirm.com.

When reviewing a motion for relief from judgment, Florida law requires a trial court to liberally apply Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 and liberally grant relief thereunder.[1] Additionally, Florida law requires a trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing whenever the movant so much as raises any colorable grounds for relief under Rule 1.540.[2] This basic requirement for an evidentiary hearing derives from Florida’s constitutional due process right to a full, fair, and meaningful opportunity to be heard.[3] Failure to provide the evidentiary hearing is fundamental error. Id.

Colorable grounds for relief under Rule 1.540 expressly include mistakes, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, and fraud.[4] Rule 1.540(b)(1) “envisions an honest mistake during the regular course of litigation, including those that result from oversight, neglect, or accident.”[5] In addition to these general mistakes and inadvertence, excusable neglect is found where inaction results from a misunderstanding, a system gone awry, a clerical error, a secretarial error, or any other of the foibles to which human nature is heir.[6]

Under these standards, this Court has repeatedly held that corporate upheaval, administrative issues, changes in litigation counsel, and other foibles of human nature resulting in an attorney’s absence at a summary judgment hearing constitute excusable neglect under Florida law.[7] These happenings are colorable grounds requiring at least an evidentiary hearing, if not outright vacating of a judgment. Id.

This article only provided a brief note on case law underlying this concept. If you have questions about relief from judgements, vacating judgments, setting aside judgments, or challenging judgments, please contact Bernhard Law Firm at 786-871-3349, abernhard@bernhardlawfirm.com, www.bernhardlawfirm.com.

---

[1] Jerue v. Holladay, 945 So. 2d 589, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“Motions for relief from judgment should be liberally granted”); J.J.K. Int’l, Inc. v. Shivbaran, 985 So. 2d 66, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (1.540(b) should be liberally construed); Wilson v. Woodward, 602 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (same).

[2] Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Redmon, 2023 WL 5061649, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (collecting cases) (trial court must conduct evidentiary hearing on motion for relief based on attorney failure to act or appear); Oshana v. Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (the trial court is required to hold an evidentiary hearing when colorable 1.540(b) issue raised); Quest Diagnostics, Inc. v. Haynie, 320 So. 3d 171, 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (reversing denial of motion to vacate where defendant’s litigation specialist who normally handled the case was unavailable, specialist’s replacement was not yet in place, and there was no willful refusal to act by corporate counsel); Bank of New York Mellon v. Depiero, 178 So. 3d 552, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (motion to vacate based on attorney absence at hearing required evidentiary hearing, along with Kozel analysis and written findings); Gascue v. HSBC Bank, U.S.A., 97 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding defendant was entitled to a hearing on hear motion to vacate judgment after her attorney failed to apper at the summary judgment hearing).

[3] Fla. Const. art. 1, § 9 (Due process); Pena v. Rodriguez, 273 So. 3d 237, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (basic due process requires a party be provided a “full, fair, and meaningful opportunity to be heard,” the denial of which constitutes fundamental error).

[4] Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(1).

[5] Noel v. James B. Nutter & Company, 232 So. 3d 1112, 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding counsel’s failure to appear at hearing under these grounds was excusable neglect).

[6] Noel v. James B. Nutter & Company, 232 So. 3d 1112, 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding counsel’s failure to appear at hearing under these grounds was excusable neglect).

[7] Supra; see also Barton Protective Servs., LLC v. Redmon, 2023 WL 5061649, at *2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (collecting cases) (trial court must conduct evidentiary hearing on motion for relief based on attorney failure to act or appear); Walker v. Franklin, 669 So. 2d 1088, 1088 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (reversing on holding “the trial court erred in denying the motion to vacate because there was excusable neglect in the failure of appellant [plaintiff]’s attorney to attend the summary judgment hearing.”); Villas at Laguna Bay Condo. Ass’n, Inc. v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 190 So. 3d 200, 202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (attorney mistaken failure to appear at hearing was “foibles to which human nature is heir” that is excusable neglect and requires evidentiary hearing); Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Brogdon, 185 So. 3d 627, 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (liberally construe rule to vacate judgment, punish attorney not litigant, and attorney oversight and breakdown or procedures in failing to appear at hearing required relief from order); Gascue v. HSBC Bank, U.S.A., 97 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (holding defendant was entitled to a hearing on hear motion to vacate judgment after her attorney failed to appear at the summary judgment hearing); Madill v. Rivercrest Cmty. Ass’n, Inc., 273 So. 3d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“There’s no question that the attorney’s oversight was the result of careless human error. But absent something more, that’s exactly what excusable neglect is. We hold, therefore, that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Madill’s motion . . . due to excusable neglect.”); Wilson v. Woodward, 602 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (reversing because the attorney presented evidence that he failed to appear at the hearing because of a mistake and not because of any willful and flagrant act).