Case Name: Arthur FALKNER and Syble Falkner, his wife, Appellants, v. AMERIFIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, previously known as First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami, a United States corporation, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1986-04-01
Citations: 489 So. 2d 758
Docket Number: No. 85-2292
Parties: Arthur FALKNER and Syble Falkner, his wife, Appellants, v. AMERIFIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, previously known as First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami, a United States corporation, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 489
Pages: 758–761

Head Matter:
Arthur FALKNER and Syble Falkner, his wife, Appellants, v. AMERIFIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, previously known as First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Miami, a United States corporation, Appellee.
No. 85-2292.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 1, 1986.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1986.
Arthur Falkner and Syble Falkner, Ft. Lauderdale, in prop. per.
Blackwell, Walker, Fascell & Hoehl and Diane H. Tutt, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
FERGUSON, Judge.
Plaintiffs appeal from an order denying their motion to vacate and set aside orders of dismissal. We reverse.
The Falkners commenced this action, pro se, against Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association (Amerifirst) for "restitution of monies paid" under a mortgage. AmeriFirst filed a motion to dismiss and notice of hearing which was concededly mailed to an incorrect address. The order of dismissal was granted at a hearing which the Falkners did not attend. The Falkners testified, at a hearing on the motion to vacate, that they received a copy of the motion to dismiss and notice of hearing after the hearing, and about the same time they received a copy of the order of dismissal. That testimony is undisputed.
Instead of moving to vacate the order of dismissal, the Falkners filed an amended complaint some five and one-half months later which AmeriFirst again moved to dismiss, asserting that the order of dismissal barred the filing of the amended complaint. Finding the first order of dismissal disposi-tive, the court entered an order dismissing the amended complaint. The Falkners' motion to vacate both orders of dismissal was denied. We held, in an earlier review of this case, that the dismissal of the Falk-ners' complaint constituted a final judgment in the cause and affirmed the judgment on res judicata grounds, without deciding whether the judgment could be set aside, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4), as void. Falkner v. Amerifirst Federal Savings and Loan Association, 467 So.2d 746 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). We now consider that question.
A judgment entered without due service of process is void. See Gelkop v. Gelkop, 384 So.2d 195 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); McAlice v. Kirsch, 368 So.2d 401 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Grahn v. Dade Home Services, Inc. 277 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). On motion, a court may, at any time, relieve a party from a void final judgment. See Sams Food Store, Inc. v. Alvarez, 443 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Tucker v. Dianne Electric, Inc. 389 So.2d 683 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); McAlice. See also Ramagli Realty Co. v. Craver, 121 So.2d 648 (Fla.1960) (the passage of time cannot make valid that which has been void).
The Falkners filed a sworn motion to vacate and set aside the orders of dismissal wherein they alleged lack of notice prior to a hearing on the motion to dismiss. Testimony in support of the motion to vacate was uncontroverted. Where the un-controverted facts showed that the Falk-ners did not receive notice, the trial court was obligated to grant relief from the judgment as a matter of law.
Reversed and remanded.
BARKDULL, J., concurs.
. The order was amended five days later to delete the words "with prejudice," the court intending, obviously, that the dismissal should be without prejudice. Appellee notes here, correctly, that the amendment was without "legal import."