Yailin Oramas v. Alejandro Eduardo Pichs Asencio

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 7, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-1406
• Status: Published

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.