ISABEL HOWARD
v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC
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.
A second motion for relief from judgment is improper if it attempts to relitigate issues decided by a previous order, and without a record of trial proceedings, an appellate court cannot conclude the trial court abused its discretion in denying such a motion.
[1] A second motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) is improper if it attempts to relitigate issues that were decided by a previous or…
[2] Without a transcript of the hearing on a motion for relief from judgment, an appellate court cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mot…
Previewing 2 of 2 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“A second motion for relief from judgment is improper if it attempts to relitigate issues decided by a previous order.”
Court's statement of applicable law regarding successive motions for relief from judgment
Isabel Howard appealed from a circuit court judgment in a case against Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC. Howard filed a motion for relief from judgment…
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 Standing Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
ISABEL HOWARD, Appellant,
v.
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Appellee.
No. 4D2024-2065
[July 9, 2025]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marina Garcia-Wood, Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE22- 017312.
Isabel Howard, Miami, pro se.
David Rosenberg and Robert R. Edwards of Robertson, Anschutz, Schneid, Crane & Partners, PLLC, Boca Raton, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Ortiz v. U.S. Bank Tr. Nat’l Ass’n, 393 So. 3d 264, 266 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (quoting Minda v. Minda, 190 So. 3d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)) (“A second motion for relief from judgment is improper if it attempts to relitigate issues decided by a previous order.”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”); Rodgers v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. for The WAMU Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-AR12, 256 So. 3d 885, 887–88 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (“In this case, the appellant has not furnished us with a transcript of the hearing on his rule 1.540(b) motion . . . . Thus, on this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the appellant’s rule 1.540(b) motion.”). See also Phaedel v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Ams., 83 So. 3d 893, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (standing may not be raised for the first time in a rule 1.540(b) motion).
WARNER, GROSS and CONNER, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Phadael v. Deutsche Bank Tr. Co. Americas, 83 So. 3d 893 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Minda v. Minda, 190 So. 3d 1126 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Jeromy Rodgers v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr., 256 So. 3d 885 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)