Court Opinion

ID: 9957776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-05 14:04:27.634404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:50.194423
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-2302
                 LT Case No. 2022-CC-006451-A
                 _____________________________

RUBEN SANTOS CASADO,

    Appellant,

    v.

JOSEPH R. DOHER, TIMOTHY ST.
GORDON AND JOSEPH CORBIN
MCGINLEY,

    Appellees.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Lake County.
Carla R. Pepperman, Judge.

Ruben Santos Casado, Clermont, pro se.

Tyler E. Mesmer, of Topouzis & Associates, P.C., Miami,
for Appellees.

                          April 5, 2024

LAMBERT, J.

     Ruben Santos Casado appeals the trial court’s unelaborated
order that denied his Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)
motion to vacate the final judgment entered in favor of Appellees
and also denied his separate post-judgment motion to impose
certain sanctions against Appellees. We affirm.
     Casado’s rule 1.540(b) motion asserted that the trial court
committed “judicial error” in entering a judgment dismissing his
complaint for failing to comply with a condition precedent to the
filing of his subject breach of contract action. Casado’s appeal
lacks merit because judicial error in a trial court’s ruling does not
provide a basis for relief under this rule. See Curbelo v. Ullman,
571 So. 2d 443, 445 (Fla. 1990) (holding that “[m]istakes which
result from oversight, neglect or accident are subject to correction
under rule 1.540(b)(1)” but “judicial error . . . is not one of the
circumstances contemplated by the rule” (citations omitted)).
Stated slightly differently, rule 1.540(b) is not a substitute for
appellate review of judicial error. Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So. 2d 622,
624 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (citation omitted).

     As to the appealed order’s denial of Casado’s motion to impose
sanctions, our standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Boca
Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561, 573 (Fla. 2005) (“A lower
court’s decision to impose sanctions is reviewed under an abuse of
discretion standard.” (citation omitted)). We conclude, without
further elaboration, that no abuse of discretion by the trial court
has been shown on this record.

    AFFIRMED.

EISNAUGLE and PRATT, JJ., concur.

                  _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                                 2