Pimienta v. Rosenfeld

Full title: Michelle Pimienta, Appellant, v. David Abraham Rosenfeld, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Third District

Date published: Jun 7, 2023

No. 3D22-0688 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Jun. 7, 2023)

Opinion

3D22-0688

06-07-2023

Michelle Pimienta, Appellant, v. David Abraham Rosenfeld, Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angelica D. Zayas, Judge. Lower Tribunal No. 20-6801

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").