Townsend v. Lane
This text of 659 So. 2d 720 (Townsend v. Lane) 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.
Opinion
AFFIRMED. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (To entitle a movant to an evidentiary hearing, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the fraud and explain why the fraud, if it exists, would entitle the movant to have the judgment set aside); Shienvold v. Habie, 627 So.2d 1203, 1205 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (“Because appellant did not specifically plead the two grounds that would have formed a basis for relief — fraud and coercion — the trial court correctly dismissed the petition for failure to state a cause of action.”), rev. denied, 640 So.2d 1107 (Fla.1994).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
659 So. 2d 720, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 9246, 1995 WL 516472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/townsend-v-lane-fladistctapp-1995.