APPELLATE COURT FINDS RELIEF UNDER RULE 1.540 WARRANTED AND VACATES VOID DISMISSAL ORDER

The Fourth DCA reversed the trial court and vacated a dismissal order (“Dismissal  Order” or “Order”) ostensibly entered by the trial court after the foreclosing plaintiff, Wealth  Mortgage Strategies (“the LLC”), failed to respond to a show cause order for lack of  prosecution. Wealth Mortg. Strategies, LLC v. Phinizee, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1649 (Fla. 4th DCA  August 12, 2026). Importantly, when the court dismissed the foreclosure action a federal  bankruptcy stayⁱ was in place rendering the Dismissal Order void.ⁱⁱ 

The LLC sought relief from the void Order under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b), but the trial  court denied the motion finding the LLC failed to file the motion “within a reasonable time”  as required by 1.540(b).ⁱⁱⁱ On appeal of that ruling, the Fourth DCA concluded that three years  was not an unreasonable amount of time to seek relief under rule 1.540 explaining that “we  have been generous in the calculation of what amount of time is ‘reasonable’” under rule  1.540, especially when the motion is “directed at a void order.” ^iv 

Elaborating, the Court reasoned that “the passage of time cannot make valid that  which has been void from the beginning” so there is “almost no time limit to move to vacate” a void order.^v The Court’s holding is no surprise given the well-established limits imposed on  court proceedings once an automatic stay takes effect under § 362.

In a hurry? Click here for the key points.

1. The Fourth DCA reversed the trial court and vacated a dismissal order (“Dismissal  Order”) which the trial court entered while a federal bankruptcy stay was in place in  violation of the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. §362(a). Wealth Mortg.  Strategies, LLC v. Phinizee, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1649 (Fla. 4th DCA August 12, 2026). 

2. The LLC sought relief from the void Dismissal Order under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b), but  the trial court denied the motion finding the LLC failed to file the motion “within a  reasonable time” as required by 1.540(b). On appeal of that ruling, the Fourth DCA  concluded that three years was not an unreasonable amount of time to seek relief  under rule 1.540 especially given the fact the Dismissal Order was void. 

3. Elaborating, the Court reasoned that “the passage of time cannot make valid that  which has been void from the beginning” so there is “almost no time limit to move to  vacate” a void order.^vi The Court’s holding is no surprise given the well-established  limits imposed on court proceedings once an automatic stay takes effect under §  362.

ⁱ Upon the filing of a bankruptcy petition, an automatic bankruptcy stay is imposed under 11 U.S.C. §362(a). Phinizee, at *1. 

ⁱⁱ Phinizee, at *1. Future references to this case are to this citation unless indicated  otherwise.

ⁱⁱⁱ Phinizee, at *2. Future references to this case are to this citation unless indicated  otherwise. 

^iv Phinizee, at *1. 

^v Phinizee, at *2 (quoting M.L. Builders, Inc. v. Rsrv. Devs., LLP, 769 So. 2d 1079, 1082 (Fla.  4th DCA 2000) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tan, 320 So. 3d 782, 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)  (other citations omitted). 

^vi Phinizee, at *2 (quoting M.L. Builders, Inc. v. Rsrv. Devs., LLP, 769 So. 2d 1079, 1082 (Fla.  4th DCA 2000) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Tan, 320 So. 3d 782, 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)  (other citations omitted).

---

`

Headquarters:

499 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 309 

Plantation, FL 33317

Main: 954-564-0071

Fax: 954-564-9252