Court Opinion

ID: 9400085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 15:04:25.446017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.281095
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                          Opinion filed June 7, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-0688
                        Lower Tribunal No. 20-6801
                           ________________

                           Michelle Pimienta,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                     David Abraham Rosenfeld,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Angélica D. Zayas, Judge.

     Michelle Pimienta, in proper person.

      Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for
appellee.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. Lopez v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., 302 So. 3d 953, 955 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2020) (concluding that the appellants were not entitled to an evidentiary

hearing and their Rule 1.540(b) motion was improper because the asserted

allegations were “before the trial court prior to the entry of the amended final

judgment of foreclosure”); Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579,

580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (affirming the court’s denial of the motion for relief

from judgment where the husband's motion attempted to re-litigate issues

that had been previously covered at the trial; explaining that “[i]f a motion on

its face does not set forth a basis for relief, then an evidentiary hearing is

unnecessary”).

                                       2