Court Opinion

ID: 9840833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 15:06:22.422996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:53.051627
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                     Opinion filed September 20, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1665
                       Lower Tribunal No. 18-12926
                          ________________

                     Tiffany Martin,
  as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jody Covert,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                        Edward W. Buttner, IV,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria Elena
Verde, Judge.

      Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., and Barry S. Franklin, for
appellant.

      Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Diaz, 227 So. 3d 726, 729

(Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“As a trial court’s ruling on whether a judgment is void

presents a question of law, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s ruling

de novo.”); Colucci v. Greenfield, 547 So. 2d 224, 225 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA

1989) (“The law is well-settled that the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction

may be raised at any time.”) (emphasis in original); Strommen v. Strommen,

927 So. 2d 176, 179 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[Subject matter jurisdiction] cannot

be conferred by waiver, acquiescence, or agreement of the parties. A trial

court’s lack of subject matter jurisdiction makes its judgments void, and a

void judgment can be attacked at any time, even collaterally.”) (internal

citation omitted); In re Riha’s Estate, 369 So. 2d 404, 404 (Fla. 2d DCA

1979) (“A court may enter an order nunc pro tunc to correct the record of an

order [a]ctually made, which was either entered incorrectly in the court

records or not entered at all. However, when the court wholly omits an order

or wishes to change it, the new order cannot be entered nunc pro

tunc.”) (internal citation omitted).

                                        2