LOREN YUDOVICH
v.
INVESTMENT 1611, LLC
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 trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for rehearing when the movant raises new arguments that could have and should have been raised prior to entry of summary judgment.
[1] A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a motion for rehearing when the movant raises arguments for the first time in that motion that could have and shoul…
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“trial courts need not grant rehearing when the movant raises a new argument that could have, and should have, been raised prior to entry of summary judgment”
Citation to Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)
Loren Yudovich appealed from a county court order in Miami-Dade County. The appeal involved a motion for rehearing in which Yudovich raised arguments …
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 Preservation Of Arguments For Appeal 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. 3D25-0384 Lower Tribunal No. 22-11445-SP-05
Loren Yudovich, Appellant,
vs.
Investment 1611, LLC, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Miesha Shonta Darrough, Judge.
Open Book Appeals, and Erin Pogue Newell (Fort Lauderdale); Tammi
A. Calarco, P.A., and Tammi A. Calarco, for appellant.
Lauren Luck, P.A., and Lauren J. Luck, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See J.J.K. Intern., Inc. v. Shivbaran, 985 So. 2d 66, 68 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (stating that an order on a motion for rehearing is reviewed for an abuse of discretion); Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211, 1217 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023) (“[T]rial courts need not grant rehearing when the movant raises a new argument that could have, and should have, been raised prior to entry of summary judgment.”); Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217, 219 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025) (“Appellants' argument fails because the trial court was not required to consider an argument that Appellants asserted for the first time in a motion for rehearing. While the trial court had discretion to grant rehearing and then consider Appellants' new argument, it was not required to do so."); Ray Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Florida Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 406 So. 3d 1086, 1088 n 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“[B]ecause these arguments were not raised below until Ray Medical Center's motion for rehearing, we find them to be unpreserved.”). 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Desmond Byrd v. State, 985 So. 2d 66 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Melrose Ventures, LLC v. Uptempo Mktg. Corp., 418 So. 3d 217 (Fla. 6th DCA 2025)
- Fision Corp. v. Frueh, 369 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)