Opinion
No. 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.
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").