Jeffrey Hollingsworth v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc. ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                            IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
    FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
    JEFFREY HOLLINGSWORTH,
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    Appellant,                           FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    v.
    CASE NO. 1D14-0607
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
    TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE
    FOR MORGAN STANLEY ABS
    CAPITAL 1 INC. TRUST 2006-
    WMC2,
    Appellee.
    _____________________________/
    Opinion filed January 20, 2015.
    An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
    Stanley H. Griffis, III, Judge.
    Mark Watts, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
    Michael K. Winston, Dean A. Morande, Donna L. Eng, and Alana Zorrilla-Gaston
    of Carlton, Fields, Jorden, Burt, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    We affirm the denial of relief under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
    1.540(b)(1)-(3) on grounds the motion was untimely. See NAFH Nat’l Bank v.
    Aristizabal, 
    117 So. 3d 900
    , 901-02 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (holding motion to vacate
    final judgment pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(2) and (3), on grounds bank committed
    fraud, “was untimely because the appellees filed it ‘more than 1 year’ after the . . .
    final judgment”); Dage v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 
    95 So. 3d 1021
    , 1023
    (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (holding motion to vacate judgment on grounds bank
    misrepresented ownership of note and mortgage at the time of filing suit was
    untimely when “[t]he Dages waited more than two years after the entry of the final
    judgment before moving to vacate the default and judgment”).
    The trial court also properly rejected the contention that relief was available
    pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(5). See Pure H2O Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti,
    
    937 So. 2d 242
    , 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (Rule 1.540(b)(5) “requires the movant
    to establish that significant new evidence or substantial changes in circumstances
    arising after the entry of the judgment make it ‘no longer equitable’ for the trial
    court to enforce its earlier order.” (citation omitted; emphasis omitted)).
    Affirmed.
    WOLF, BENTON, and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-0607

Filed Date: 1/19/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/20/2015