NATALY RIERA GARCIA
v.
DISCOVER BANK
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Nataly Riera Garcia appealed the denial of her motion for relief from final judgment against Discover Bank. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's denial, finding no abuse of discretion and that the motion failed to establish grounds for relief.
The court affirmed the denial of Garcia's motion for relief from final judgment, finding no abuse of discretion and that the allegations in the motion did not establish grounds for relief warranting an evidentiary hearing.
“The denial of a motion for relief from final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”
Establishes the standard of review for appeals of motions for relief from final judgment
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide detailed facts about the underlying dispute between Garcia and Discover Bank. The case involves a motion for relief from …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.540(B) Relief From Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Noel v. James B. Nutter & Co., 232 So. 3d 1112, 1115 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The denial of a motion for relief from final judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion."); Bank of New York Mellon v. Simpson, 227 So. 3d 669, 670 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“Rule 1.540(b) does not have as its purpose or intent the reopening of lawsuits to allow parties to state new claims or offer new evidence omitted by oversight or inadvertence."); City of Miami v. Fraternal Ord. of Police Lodge #20, 248 So. 3d 273, 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ("Arbitration is a matter of contract. An arbitrator's authority to conduct an arbitration and the issue(s) to be arbitrated are granted and limited by the operative document(s) in question or by agreement of the parties themselves."); Parkhomchuck v. AIY, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) ("[W]here the allegations of a rule 1.540(b) motion do not give rise to a right to relief, an evidentiary hearing on those allegations is not required.” (quoting Cottrell v. Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Corp., 198 So. 3d 688, 691 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cottrell v. Taylor, 198 So. 3d 688 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)
- Saint Luc Jean Noel v. James B. Nutter & Co., 232 So. 3d 1112 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Morrow v. SF Materials & Supplies, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- City of Miami v. Fraternal Order OF Police Lodge #20, 248 So. 3d 273 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- The Bank OF NEW York Mellon v. Simpson, 227 So. 3d 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)