Eduardo v. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes v. the Bank of New York, Etc.

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 22, 2025
Docket3D2024-2018
StatusPublished

This text of Eduardo v. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes v. the Bank of New York, Etc. (Eduardo v. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes v. the Bank of New York, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Eduardo v. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes v. the Bank of New York, Etc., (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 22, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2018 Lower Tribunal No. 08-43476-CA-01 ________________

Eduardo V. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes, Appellants,

vs.

The Bank of New York as Trustee for Registered Holders of CWABS, Inc., Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-19, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Thomas J. Rebull, Judge.

Keystone Law Firm, P.A., and Frank Wolland and Eliezer S. Poupko, for appellants.

Kahane & Associates, P.A., and Robert Kahane and Cassandra Jeffries (Sunrise), for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Perkins v. Salem, 249 So. 2d 466, 467 (Fla. 1st DCA

1971) (“Upon a consideration of the grounds for the second and successive

motion for relief as set forth therein, it is apparent that each of such grounds

is identical with those incorporated in the first motion for relief filed by

appellant, or relate to matters of evidence and procedure which with due

diligence could have been included in such motion as grounds for the relief

prayed. The court’s denial of the initial motion for relief was therefore res

judicata as to all the grounds assigned as a basis for relief in the second and

successive motion. The trial court was eminently correct in denying the relief

prayed for, and the order denying such relief is therefore affirmed.”) (footnote

omitted); Streater v. Stamper, 466 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“[T]o

the extent that the [ ] motion merely renews the allegations upon which relief

was previously denied, the doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of

the issue presented.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Streater v. Stamper
466 So. 2d 397 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Perkins v. Salem
249 So. 2d 466 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eduardo v. Valdes and Cheryl M. Valdes v. the Bank of New York, Etc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eduardo-v-valdes-and-cheryl-m-valdes-v-the-bank-of-new-york-etc-fladistctapp-2025.