Case ID: so2d_659/html/0720-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Randall TOWNSEND, Appellant, v. Charles E. LANE, Jr., d/b/a Sabal Marketing, Appellee.
    No. 94-1913.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
    Sept. 1, 1995.
    Randall Townsend, Odessa, pro se.
    Charles E. Williams, Jr., of Brown & Williams, P.A., Orlando, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (To entitle a movant to an evidentiary hearing, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the fraud and explain why the fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside); Shienvold v. Habie, 627 So.2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“Because appellant did not specifically plead the two grounds that would have formed a basis for relief — fraud and coercion — the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action.”), rev. denied, 640 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1994).

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN and HARRIS, JJ., concur.