Yailin Oramas v. Alejandro Eduardo Pichs Asencio

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 7, 2026.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1406

Lower Tribunal No. 15-28055-FC-04

________________

Yailin Oramas,

Appellant,

vs.

Alejandro Eduardo Pichs Asencio, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Gisela Cardonne Ely, Senior Judge.

Francisco J. Vargas, P.A., and Francisco J. Vargas, for appellant.

Law Office of Miguel San Pedro, and Miguel San Pedro; Law Office Jesus O. Cervantes, and Jesus O. Cervantes, for appellee.

Before LOBREE, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

After it adopted a magistrate’s report and recommendation containing an error, the trial court vacated the order modifying child support and ordered a trial de novo. Appellant Yailin Oramas challenges that order on appeal. Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the order and ordering a trial de novo, we affirm. See Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.490(e)(3)–(4) (“Any party affected by the order may move to vacate the order by filing a motion to vacate within 15 days from the date of entry. . . . If applicable, a motion to vacate operates as a motion for rehearing under rule 12.530.”); Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530(a) (“On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, . . . the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, and enter a new judgment.”); In re Amends. to Fla. Fam. L. Rules of Proc., 389 So. 3d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 2024) (“Also, we amend rules 12.490 and 12.491 by changing the deadline to file a motion to vacate from 10 to 15 days. We also clarify, in both rules, that ‘a motion to vacate operates as a motion for rehearing under rule 12.530.’”).

Affirmed.