"To seek relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(5) or 12.540(b)(5), an appellant must show that there are new circumstances that affect the judgment previously rendered by the trial court which make it no longer equitable for the trial court to enforce its decision." Schmidt v. Nipper, 287 So.3d 1289, 1294 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (emphasis added); see also Garcia v. Christiana Tr., 230 So.3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding that, "[a]t its core," corollary rule 1.540 requires that "there must be some new post-judgment fact or occurrence that requires the trial court, in equity, to recede from its prior order or judgment"); Pure H2O Biotechnologies, Inc. v. Mazziotti, 937 So.2d 242, 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (holding that "[r]ule 1.540(b)(5) does not allow a party to retry a case merely because the judgment provides equitable relief and the party has found additional evidence"). The issue is a pure question of law requiring de novo review.

See Garcia v. Christiana Tr., 230 So.3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (requiring "the moving party to 'allege new [post-judgment] circumstances affecting the decision made by the trial judge'") (quoting Gotham Ins. Co. v. Matthew, 179 So.3d 437, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015));

"The general reservation of jurisdiction in a foreclosure judgment is deemed in case law to be appropriate for deficiency judgment." Garcia v. Christiana Tr., 230 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). Further, "[f]oreclosure (a.k.a. equity) courts are explicitly granted the authority to enter the legal remedy of a deficiency judgment by virtue of [Florida Statutes] section 702.

To seek relief pursuant to rule 1.540(b)(5) or 12.540(b)(5), an appellant must show that there are new circumstances that affect the judgment previously rendered by the trial court which make it no longer equitable for the trial court to enforce its decision. SeeGarcia v. Christiana Trust , 230 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017). "At its core, there must be some new post-judgment fact or occurrence that requires the trial court, in equity, to recede from its prior order or judgment." Id.

Affirmed. See Garcia v. Christiana Trust, 230 So. 3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (holding: " Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) requires the moving party to allege new circumstances affecting the decision made by the trial judge. In addition, the movant must establish that these new circumstances make it no longer equitable for the trial court to enforce its earlier decision.

In permitting such a supplemental post-judgment proceeding, the trial court acted in the absence of jurisdiction.See also Garcia v. Christiana Tr., 230 So.3d 66, 69 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ("[T]he general reservation of jurisdiction does not allow for a supplemental complaint or to add an omitted party post-judgment."); Singer v. Singer, 219 So.3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (holding that the final order "did not contain a specific reservation of the court's jurisdiction to permit a supplemental complaint post judgment to add a third party.")