DANA W. RYAN, ET AL.,

v.

KIG I, LLC, ET AL.,

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Purdue v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 259 So. 3d 918, 921 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“[C]laim that [movant] did not receive the master dismissal order is generally cognizable under rule 1.540(b)(1).”); John Deere Const. & Forestry Co. v. Lorelys Elec. Corp., 69 So. 3d 1099, 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (affirming rule 1.540(b)(2) relief where record showed court could have granted identical relief under 1.540(b)(1)); Okeechobee Imps., Inc. v. Am. Sav. & Loan Ass’n of Fla., 558 So. 2d 506, 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (rule 1.540(b)(1) relief granted where complaint became lost by being accidentally placed in non-litigation related file dealing with same subject); Carter, Hawley, Hale Stores, Inc. v. Whitman, 516 So. 2d 83, 83-84 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (finding mistake under 1.540(b)(1) where complaint “became ‘lost’ in a pile of unrelated documents”); Falkner v. Amerifirst Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 489 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (courts “obligated to grant relief” where “uncontroverted facts showed [movants] did not receive notice”); Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc., 486 So. 2d 1386, 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (observing that motions for rehearing and for relief from judgment are “[b]oth mechanisms [that] provide a mode of attacking a final judgment”); Gibson v. Buice, 381 So. 2d 349, 351-52 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980) (holding rules 1.540(a) and 1.540(b) available, “[w]here the excusable neglect relied upon is lack of notice of the rendition of a final judgment”).