AZRAN MIAMI 2 LLC
v.
US BANK TRUST, N.A., 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 Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud must specify the fraud with particularity and demonstrate a prima facie case of fraud, not merely nibble at the edges of the concept, to entitle the movant to an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment based on fraud must specify the fraud with particularity and explain why the fraud would entitle the movant to have the judgment set asi…
[2] An evidentiary hearing on a motion for relief from judgment is unnecessary if the motion does not set forth a basis for relief on its face.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“To entitle a movant to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for relief from judgment, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the fraud with particularity and explain why the fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside.”
Quoted from U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Paiz, 68 So. 3d 940, 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
Azran Miami 2, LLC filed a motion for relief from judgment against US Bank Trust, N.A. in a Miami-Dade County circuit court case. The trial court deni…
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 Evidentiary Hearing Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Paiz, 68 So. 3d 940, 944 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding: “To entitle a movant to an evidentiary hearing on a motion for relief from judgment, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the fraud with particularity and explain why the fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). ‘If a motion does not set forth a basis for relief on its face, then an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, the time and expense of needless litigation is avoided, and the policy of preserving the finality of judgments is enhanced.’ Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 20 So. 3d 952, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The matter alleged must affect the outcome of the case and not merely be ‘de minimis.’ Thus, to obtain a hearing on a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion, the law requires a movant ‘to demonstrate a prima facie case of fraud, not just nibble at the edges of the concept.’ Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)”) (citations and quotations omitted).
See also Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine Art Grp., Inc., 139 So. 3d 355, 357-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining that the “purpose of this specificity requirement is to permit the court ‘to determine whether the movant has made a prima facie showing which would justify relief from judgment,’ and is not merely rehashing matters explored at trial”) (quotation omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Raziel Ofer v. Metro. Mortg. Co., LLC (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Flemenbaum v. Lily Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 20 So. 3d 952 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Paiz, 68 So. 3d 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine ART Grp., Inc., 139 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)