LELLY C. ALFONSO
v.
RICHARD LANG
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 a foreclosure judgment based on alleged fraudulent evidence submission by the opposing party may be denied by the trial court without reversible error.
[1] Orders disposing of motions for rehearing are not separately reviewable from review of the final order.
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 intelligenceAlfonso attempted to set aside a foreclosure judgment against him by Lang. After this court dismissed Alfonso's initial appeal for untimely filing, Al…
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 Rehearing cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. This appeal arises out of the appellant’s attempt to set aside a foreclosure judgment. After this court dismissed the appellant’s appeal of the foreclosure judgment based on the notice of appeal not being timely filed, the appellant moved for relief from judgment and/or rehearing, requesting that the trial court vacate the judgment and dismiss the foreclosure based on the appellee’s purported submission of fraudulent evidence, or, in the alternative, grant rehearing. The appellant appeals from the order denying his motion. We find no merit to the appellant’s argument that the trial court erred in denying his motion for relief from judgment, and we affirm on that issue. Further, we dismiss the appeal of the portion of the order denying rehearing of the foreclosure judgment. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(4) (providing that “[o]rders disposing of motions for rehearing . . . are not reviewable separately from a review of the final order”). Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and GERBER, JJ., concur.
2
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.