Case Name: Matthew L. HIRSCHHORN and Deborah L. Hirschhorn, Appellants, v. AVONDALE FUNDING.COM, Clerk of the Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, and New South Federal Savings Bank, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-08-02
Citations: 933 So. 2d 1290
Docket Number: No. 4D05-4028
Parties: Matthew L. HIRSCHHORN and Deborah L. Hirschhorn, Appellants, v. AVONDALE FUNDING.COM, Clerk of the Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, and New South Federal Savings Bank, Appellees.
Judges: WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 933
Pages: 1290–1291

Head Matter:
Matthew L. HIRSCHHORN and Deborah L. Hirschhorn, Appellants, v. AVONDALE FUNDING.COM, Clerk of the Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, and New South Federal Savings Bank, Appellees.
No. 4D05-4028.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
Aug. 2, 2006.
Charles M. Eiss of Law Firm of Glantz & Glantz, P.A., Plantation, for appellants.
Larry M. Segall of Gibbons, Cohn, Neu-man, Bello, Segall & Allen, P.A., Tampa, for appellees.

Opinion:
On Motion fob Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
We grant rehearing, withdraw our previously issued opinion and substitute the following in its place.
Affirmed. The appellants make a post-judgment challenge based on the judge's recusal upon the appellants' request after the final judgment was entered. At most, the previously entered judgment was merely voidable and not void. Schlesinger v. Chemical Bank, 707 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Murphy v. State, 627 So.2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Barber v. MacKenzie, 562 So.2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Appellants had to move for reconsideration of the already entered final judgment, which they did not. See Murphy. A subsequent challenge based upon the voidness of the judgment is of no avail.
WARNER, KLEIN and GROSS, JJ., concur.