MICHELLE PIMIENTA v. DAVID ABRAHAM ROSENFELD

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 7, 2023
• Docket: 22-0688
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 7, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-0688 Lower Tribunal No. 20-6801 ________________

Michelle Pimienta, Appellant,

vs.

David Abraham Rosenfeld, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angélica D. Zayas, Judge.

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”).