MICHELLE PIMIENTA,
v.
DAVID ABRAHAM ROSENFELD,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2023-06-07
No. 2022-0688
302 So. 3d 953 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2023) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Lopez v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 302 So. 3d 953, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (concluding that the appellants were not entitled to an evidentiary hearing and their Rule 1.540(b) motion was improper because the asserted allegations were “before the trial court prior to the entry of the amended final judgment of foreclosure”); Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (affirming the court’s denial of the motion for relief from judgment where the husband's motion attempted to re-litigate issues that had been previously covered at the trial; explaining that “[i]f a motion on its face does not set forth a basis for relief, then an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary”).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Pimienta v. Rosenfeld, 302 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
  • …trial court's ruling on a rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate for an abuse of discretion, and we will not disturb that ruling unless no reasonable judge would have reached the same decision”) (internal citation omitted); Lopez v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 302 So. 3d 953, 955 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Any matter asserted in [appellants’] rule 1.540(b) motion that was before the trial court prior to the entry of the amended final judgment of foreclosure is improperly raised in a rule 1.540(b) motion. A rule 1.540(b) m…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw