ESTHER URREA
v.
JEFFREY KOPLOW, ET AL.
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 motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b)(5) must be filed within a reasonable time after the judgment is entered, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the untimely motion.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.540(b)(5) must be filed within a reasonable time after the judgment is entered, and the tria…
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“[R]ule 1.540(b)[(5)] requires such a motion to be brought 'within a reasonable time' therefore, once the litigant knows the final judgment is no longer equitable, the litigant must move within a reasonable amount of time to vacate final judgment.”
Brooks v. Brooks, 340 So. 3d 543, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)
Esther Urrea appealed a judgment from Miami-Dade County Circuit Court, challenging the trial court's denial of her motion for relief from judgment und…
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 Finality Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed July 9, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-0372
Lower Tribunal No. 14-12888-CA-01
Esther Urrea,
Appellant,
vs.
Jeffrey Koplow, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Ariana Fajardo Orshan, Judge.
The Law Office of Kathleen A. Daly, P.A., and Kathleen Ann Daly (Boynton Beach), for appellant.
Grumer Law, P.A., and Keith T. Grumer (Weston), for appellees.
Before MILLER, LOBREE, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Fla. R. App. P. 1.540(b)(5) (providing relief from judgment where “the judgment, decree, or order has been satisfied, released, or discharged" and requiring such motion for relief be filed “within a reasonable time" after the judgment was entered); Brooks v. Brooks, 340 So. 3d 543, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[R]ule 1.540(b)[(5)] requires such a motion to be brought 'within a reasonable time' therefore, once the litigant knows the final judgment is no longer equitable, the litigant must move within a reasonable amount of time to vacate final judgment." (quoting Castro v. Sun ‘N Lake of Sebring Improvement Dist., 334 So. 3d 663, 666–67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021))); Brooks, 340 So. 3d at 547 (affirming denial of rule 1.540 relief where the motion was filed sixteen years after the challenged order and "[t]he former husband knew of the alleged mistake in 2004”); see also Travelers Com. Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 187 So. 3d 879, 888 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“[T]he exhaustion of appellate remedies has never been a prerequisite to the entitlement of relief under rule 1.540(b)(5), or an impediment to the jurisdiction of a trial court to consider whether to grant relief from a 'final judgment' under that subsection of the rule.”); see also Sanchez v. Sanchez, 285 So. 3d 969, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (reviewing denial of rule 1.540 motion for an abuse of discretion); Cunha v. Cunha, 92 So. 3d 918, 919 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“Because a trial court is accorded broad discretion in determining rule 1.540(b) motions, the standard of review of an order on a rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment is whether there has been an abuse of the trial court's discretion.") (quotation omitted).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Cunha v. Cunha, 92 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Elliot v. State, 187 So. 3d 879 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
- Castro v. SUN 'n Lake of Sebring Improvement Dist., 334 So. 3d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)