TANIA T. AGUILAR
v.
GIRALDO A. PEREZ DE UTRERA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Rule 1.540 and its family law equivalent (Rule 12.540) are not appropriate vehicles to challenge a judgment based on alleged legal error.
[1] Rule 1.540 and its family law equivalent, Rule 12.540, are not appropriate procedural vehicles for challenging a judgment on the basis of alleged legal error.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Neither rule 1.540, nor its family law equivalent (rule 12.540), is an appropriate vehicle to challenge a judgment based upon alleged legal error.”
The court cited Franco v. Thomas, 251 So. 3d 325, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) to establish the governing rule.
Tania T. Aguilar appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a family law matter against Giraldo A. Perez De Utrera.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Subject Matter Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed May 20, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2344 Lower Tribunal No. 24-20029-FC-04
Tania T. Aguilar, Appellant,
vs.
Giraldo A. Perez De Utrera, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Donald Cannava, Judge.
Tania T. Aguilar, in proper person.
Giraldo A. Perez De Utrera, in proper person.
Before LINDSEY, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Franco v. Thomas, 251 So. 3d 325, 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“Neither rule 1.540, nor its family law equivalent (rule 12.540), is an appropriate vehicle to challenge a judgment based upon alleged legal error." (citing Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 445 (Fla. 1990), and Theodorides v. Theodorides, 201 So. 3d 141, 143–44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015))); Curbelo, 571 So. 2d at 445 (“[W]here a court . . . has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the adverse parties are given an opportunity to be heard, then errors, irregularities or wrongdoing in proceedings, short of illegal deprivation of opportunity to be heard, will not render the judgment void."); see also Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650, 659 (Fla. 2000) (explaining that the fact that a judge has ruled against a party is not a legally sufficient basis for disqualification).
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thompson v. State, 759 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 2000)
- Arnaldo Curbelo, M.D. v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 1990)
- Theodorides v. Theodorides, 201 So. 3d 141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Franco v. Thomas, 251 So. 3d 325 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)