RAVELO v. PAYRET (2022)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Roman RAVELO, Appellant, v. Maria D. PAYRET, Appellee.

No. 3D20-0409

Decided: March 30, 2022

Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.

Law Offices of Mark A. Dienstag, and Mark A. Dienstag, Law Offices of Karen J. Haas, and Karen J. Haas, for appellant. Law Offices of Solangel Verde, and Solangel Verde, Law Offices of Kevin W. Nates, and Kevin W. Nates, for appellee.

Appellant, Roman Ravelo, challenges an order denying his rule 1.540(b) motion in the underlying partition suit. Concluding the motion sets forth “a colorable entitlement to relief,” we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relief should be granted. See Oshana v. Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (footnote omitted) (“Although we review a trial court's ruling on motions for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion, once a party moving under rule 1.540(b) raises a colorable entitlement to relief exercising that discretion requires holding an evidentiary hearing.”); Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“A motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief.”).

Reversed and remanded.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network