Sao v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sao v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

109 So. 3d 896, 2013 WL 1339230, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5470

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 4, 2013

DocketNo. 1D12-4575

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 So. 3d 896 (Sao v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) 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

Sao v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 109 So. 3d 896, 2013 WL 1339230, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5470 (Fla. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to quash service of process, set aside judgment, sale, and order of writ of eviction based upon the court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Appellee properly concedes error. “[A] trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before entering an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment.” Palacio v. Alaska Seaboard Partners Ltd. P’hip, 50 So.3d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)). “Furthermore, if a moving party’s allegations raise a colorable entitlement to relief, a formal evidentiary hearing and appropriate discovery is required.” M Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND for an evi-dentiary hearing.

LEWIS, THOMAS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges the trial court’s order denying his motion to quash service of process, set aside judgment, sale, and order of writ of eviction based upon the court’s failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing. Appellee properly concedes error. “[A] trial court is required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before entering an order denying a motion to set aside a judgment.” Palacio v. Alaska Seaboard Partners Ltd. P’hip, 50 So.3d 54 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (citing Seal v. Brown, 801 So.2d 993, 994-95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)). “Furthermore, if a moving party’s allegations raise a colorable entitlement to relief, a formal evidentiary hearing and appropriate discovery is required.” M Therefore, we REVERSE and REMAND for an evi-dentiary hearing.

LEWIS, THOMAS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 3d 896, 2013 WL 1339230, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 5470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sao-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-fladistctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack