Case ID: so3d_225/html/0366-01.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

NIEVES FINANCIAL INVESTMENT CORP., Appellant, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 3D16-1978
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Opinion filed August 16, 2017
    A.R.A. Law Group and Armando R. Alfonso, for appellant.
    SHD Legal Group and Roy A. Diaz (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
    Before SUAREZ, EMAS and LINDSEY, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d 443, 444 (Fla. 1990) (observing: “As correctly noted by the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Fiber Crete Homes, Inc., v. Division of Administration, 315 So.2d 492, 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), ‘rule 1.540 was intended to provide relief from judgments, degrees or orders under a limited set of circumstances.’ This rule was not ‘intended to serve as a substitute for the new trial mechanism prescribed by Rule 1.530 nor as a substitute for appellate review of judicial error.’ ”) See also Havanatur, S.A., v. 747 Travel Agency, Inc., 463 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding that “‘the general rule—universally— is that intervention may not be allowed after final judgment,’ save ‘in the interests of justice’ ”) (quoting Dickinson v. Segal, 219 So.2d 435, 436-37 (Fla. 1969)).