EDUARDO V. VALDES AND CHERYL M. VALDES
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK, ETC.
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 successive motion for relief that raises grounds identical to those in a prior motion or that could have been included in the initial motion is barred by res judicata.
[1] The doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of grounds in a successive motion for relief that are identical to those raised in an initial motion or that could hav…
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“Upon a consideration of the grounds for the second and successive motion for relief as set forth therein, it is apparent that each of such grounds is identical with those incorporated in the first motion for relief filed by appellant, or relate to matters of evidence and procedure which with due diligence could have been included in such motion as grounds for the relief prayed.”
Perkins v. Salem, cited for the principle that res judicata applies to successive motions raising identical or previously available grounds
Eduardo V. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes filed a successive motion for relief against The Bank of New York as Trustee in a mortgage-related action in Mi…
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 Successive Motions For Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-2018 Lower Tribunal No. 08-43476-CA-01 ________________
Eduardo V. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes, Appellants,
vs.
The Bank of New York as Trustee for Registered Holders of CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-19, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.
Keystone Law Firm, P.A., and Frank Wolland and Eliezer S. Poupko, for appellants.
Kahane & Associates, P.A., and Robert Kahane and Cassandra Jeffries (Sunrise), for appellee.
Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Perkins v. Salem, 249 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (“Upon a consideration of the grounds for the second and successive motion for relief as set forth therein, it is apparent that each of such grounds is identical with those incorporated in the first motion for relief filed by appellant, or relate to matters of evidence and procedure which with due diligence could have been included in such motion as grounds for the relief prayed. The court’s denial of the initial motion for relief was therefore res judicata as to all the grounds assigned as a basis for relief in the second and successive motion. The trial court was eminently correct in denying the relief prayed for, and the order denying such relief is therefore affirmed.”) (footnote omitted); Streater v. Stamper, 466 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“[T]o the extent that the [ ] motion merely renews the allegations upon which relief was previously denied, the doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of the issue presented.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Perkins v. Zack A. Salem, 249 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Streater v. Stamper, 466 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)