Urbina v. Maddox - Motion to challenge final judgment denied
Summary
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Sixth District, affirmed a lower court's decision, denying a motion to challenge a final judgment. The court cited precedent stating that a rule 1.540(b) motion cannot be used to overcome a party's failure to timely challenge the original final judgment.
What changed
The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Sixth District, has affirmed the lower tribunal's decision in the case of Urbina v. Maddox. The appellate court denied the appellant's motion to challenge a final judgment, referencing Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130. The court's disposition, 'Affirmed,' indicates that the prior ruling stands.
This decision reinforces the principle that procedural motions cannot be used to circumvent the timely challenge of an original final judgment. Parties involved in litigation should be aware that failure to adhere to deadlines for challenging judgments will likely result in the denial of subsequent motions aimed at overturning those judgments. The case highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules and deadlines in the judicial process.
What to do next
- Review case law cited regarding challenges to final judgments.
- Ensure adherence to procedural deadlines for challenging judgments in Florida courts.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
Jennifer Lauren Urbina v. Melinda Maddox
District Court of Appeal of Florida
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 6D2024-2520
Disposition: Affirmed
Disposition
Affirmed
Combined Opinion
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-2520
Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CC-004310
JENNIFER LAUREN URBINA,
Appellant,
v.
MELINDA MADDOX,
Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the County Court for Polk County.
Stacie L. Kaylor, Judge.
March 27, 2026
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Baez v. Perez, 201 So. 3d 692, 694 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (A
rule 1.540(b) motion cannot be utilized “to overcome [a party’s] failure to timely
challenge the original final judgment.” (quoting Beal Bank, S.S.B., Inc. v. Sherwin,
829 So. 2d 961, 962 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002))).
TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and NARDELLA, JJ., concur.
J. Joseph Givner and Kevin D. Salinas, of Givner Law Group, LLP, Miami, for
Appellant.
Melinda Maddox, Haines City, pro se.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
2
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when FL District Court of Appeal Opinions publishes new changes.