Legal Opinion

Huffman v. Delacruz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided October 28, 1998No. 98-0415PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

WARNER, Judge.

The trial court vacated the final order of dismissal and order enforcing settlement because it found that the plaintiff/appellee’s attorney had procured a settlement of the lawsuit without the appellee’s consent.1 Not only had the attorney signed the settlement stipulations without the appellee’s consent, but he also forged his client’s name on the settlement check. The appellee has received nothing from the settlement. We affirm, holding that the actions of appellee’s attorney constituted extrinsic fraud on the court, for which there is no time period for bringing a motion to…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
  2. DeClaire v. YohananSupreme Court of Florida · 1984
  3. Fair v. Tampa Electric CompanySupreme Court of Florida · 1946

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. NC-DSH, INC. v. GarnerNevada Supreme Court · 2009
  2. The Florida Philharmonic Orchestra, Inc. v. Phillip Bradford Robert Williams Moving & Storage, Inc., and Fisher Aucton Co., Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2014
  3. Asous v. Guardianship of J.L.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 2013
  4. Bony v. Public Health TrustDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API