ROMAN RAVELO
v.
MARIA D. PAYRET
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.
Roman Ravelo appealed an order denying his Rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment in an underlying partition suit. The appellate court concluded that Ravelo's motion set forth a colorable entitlement to relief and reversed the trial court's denial.
The court reversed the trial court's order and held that when a Rule 1.540(b) motion raises a colorable entitlement to relief, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing rather than summarily dismissing the motion.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 1.540(b) that alleges a colorable entitlement to relief must proceed to an evidentiary hearing…
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 intelligenceRavelo filed a Rule 1.540(b) motion for relief from judgment in a partition suit against Maria D. Payret. The motion was denied by the trial court wit…
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 Colorable Entitlement To Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 30, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D20-0409 Lower Tribunal No. 17-7556 ________________
Roman Ravelo,
Appellant,
vs.
Maria D. Payret, Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, David C. Miller, Judge. Law Offices of Mark A. Dienstag, and Mark A. Dienstag, Law Offices of Karen J. Haas, and Karen J. Haas, for appellant. Law Offices of Solangel Verde, and Solangel Verde, Law Offices of Kevin W. Nates, and Kevin W. Nates, for appellee. Before SCALES, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Roman Ravelo, challenges an order denying his rule 1.540(b) motion in the underlying partition suit. Concluding the motion sets forth “a colorable entitlement to relief,” we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether relief should be granted. See Oshana v. Lopiano, 314 So. 3d 311, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (footnote omitted) (“Although we review a trial court’s ruling on motions for relief from judgment for an abuse of discretion, once a party moving under rule 1.540(b) raises a colorable entitlement to relief exercising that discretion requires holding an evidentiary hearing.”); Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044, 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“A motion for relief from judgment should not be summarily dismissed without an evidentiary hearing unless its allegations and accompanying affidavits fail to allege ‘colorable entitlement’ to relief.”).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ravelo v. Payret, 343 So. 3d 689 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
-
United States ex rel. Jose R. Castro v. Regan, 525 F.2d 1157 (3d Cir. 1975)…ew we take, we need not consider whether Mullaney should be accorded retroactive effect. We note in passing that at least one court has ruled that Mullaney only applies to trials commenced after June 9, 1975, the date of decision. People v. Balogun, 372 N.Y.S.2d 384 (N.Y.Sup.Ct., Kings Cty., 1975). Inasmuch as Mullaney is soundly grounded on In re Winship, which was held completely retroactive in Ivan v. City of New York, 407 U.S. 203, 92 S.Ct. 1951, 32 L.Ed.2d 659 (1972) (per curiam); see Mullaney, 421 U.S. at…
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Smith, 903 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)