UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
BERTHA VELARDE
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.
A party dissatisfied with a trial court's ruling on a Rule 1.540(b) motion must appeal rather than file successive motions to vacate containing the same general grounds or new grounds that could have been raised in the first motion.
[1] A party dissatisfied with a trial court's ruling on a Rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate must pursue appeal as the proper remedy rather than filing successive motions contain…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“if the appellants were dissatisfied with the trial court's ruling on their first rule 1.540(b) motion, their remedy was by appeal, not b[y] filing successive motions to vacate containing the same general grounds or even new ones, which could have been raised in the first motion.”
Court's statement of the governing legal principle regarding proper procedure after an adverse ruling on a Rule 1.540(b) motion.
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company appealed a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The case involved a dispute r…
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.
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed April 24, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D23-0924 Lower Tribunal No. 22-7793 ________________
Universal Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellant,
vs.
Bertha Velarde, Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Barbara Areces, Judge.
Karla D. Ellis and Noah S. Bender (Fort Lauderdale), for appellant.
Alvarez, Feltman, Da Silva & Costa, P.L., and Paul B. Feltman; The Echevarria Law Firm, P.A., and Nicolas M. Echevarria, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. Parkhomchuck v. AIY, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397, 400 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[I]f the appellants were dissatisfied with the trial court's ruling on their first rule 1.540(b) motion, their remedy was by appeal, not b[y] filing successive motions to vacate containing the same general grounds or even new ones, which could have been raised in the first motion.” (quotation omitted)).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Morrow v. SF Materials & Supplies, Inc., 338 So. 3d 397 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)