PIMIENTA v. ROSENFELD (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Michelle PIMIENTA, Appellant, v. David Abraham ROSENFELD, Appellee.

No. 3D22-0688

Decided: June 07, 2023

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

Michelle Pimienta, in proper person. Nancy A. Hass, P.A., and Nancy A. Hass (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

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”).

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Out of date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