ALEJANDRO VIDELA
v.
HITOMI OGINO
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 in denying a Rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from final judgment when the newly discovered evidence would not probably change the result.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion for relief from final judgment under Rule 1.540(b) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and denial is proper when the newly discovered…
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 intelligenceAlejandro Videla appealed a circuit court order denying his motion for relief from a final judgment in a family law matter. Videla claimed newly disco…
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 Due Diligence Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed August 13, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
No. 3D25-2494
Lower Tribunal No. 19-3921-FC-04
Alejandro Videla,
Appellant,
vs.
Hitomi Ogino,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Denise Martinez-Scanziani, Judge.
Alejandro Videla, in proper person.
No appearance, for appellee.
Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY and BOKOR, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Hess v. Hess, 290 So. 3d 512, 518 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("Rule 12.540(b) allows a trial court to relieve a party from a final judgment on grounds of newly discovered evidence, which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing."); Shlimbaum v. Shlimbaum, 394 So. 3d 1157, 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024) ("[M]otions filed under rule 12.540(b) are governed by the body of law applicable to rule 1.540(b).” (quotation omitted)); Brooks v. Brooks, 340 So. 3d 543, 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“[T]his Court generally reviews an order denying a rule 1.540[(b)] motion for abuse of discretion . . . .”); Milgen Dev., Inc. v. Goodman, 302 So. 2d 491, 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (“[T]he motion was properly denied because the letter would have no material difference in the outcome of the case. . . . [I]nasmuch as it does not appear that the evidence is such as will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, denial of the motion was correct.").
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Milgen Dev., Inc. v. Goodman, 302 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Shlimbaum v. Shlimbaum, 394 So. 3d 1157 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)