NATALIA CAROLINNI SOUZA DE SA
v.
STAR BLUE CORPORATION, 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 Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud must specify essential facts of the purported fraud with particularity and establish a prima facie case, not merely assert legal conclusions or rehash matters explored at trial.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment under Rule 1.540(b)(3) based on fraud must specify the essential facts of the alleged fraud with particularity and establish a prima fac…
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“In order to warrant an evidentiary hearing, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the essential facts of the purported fraud and not merely assert legal conclusions.”
Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine Art Group, Inc., 139 So. 3d 355, 357–58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
Natalia Carolinni Souza de Sa filed a Rule 1.540(b)(3) motion seeking relief from a judgment in a case against Star Blue Corporation. The motion alleg…
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 Motion For Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 6, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-1661
Lower Tribunal No. 23-2696-CA-01 Natalia Carolinni Souza de Sa,
Appellant,
vs.
Star Blue Corporation,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.
Natalia Carolinni Souza de Sa, in proper person. Fowler White Burnett, P.A., and Esther E. Galicia, for appellee. Before GORDO, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine Art Group, Inc., 139 So. 3d 355, 357–58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“In order to warrant an evidentiary hearing, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify the essential facts of the purported fraud and not merely assert legal conclusions. The purpose of this specificity requirement is to permit the court to determine whether the movant has made a prima facie showing which would justify relief from judgment, and is not merely rehashing matters explored at trial.”) (citations omitted); Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“To obtain a hearing on her rule 1.540(b)(3) motion, the law required Hembd to demonstrate a prima facie case of fraud, not just nibble at the edges of the concept."); see also Sierra by Sierra v. Pub. Health Tr. of Dade Cnty., 661 So. 2d 1296, 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (“An appellate court is reactive; it can only review asserted errors made by lower tribunals such as courts and administrative agencies. Appellate courts may not decide issues that were not ruled on by a trial court in the first instance.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sierra v. Pub. Health Tr. OF Dade Cnty., 661 So. 2d 1296 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)
- Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So. 2d 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)