Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 15, 2021.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D20-1712
Lower Tribunal No. 16-14544
________________
Azran Miami 2, LLC,
Appellant,
vs.
US Bank Trust, N.A., etc.,
Appellee.
An Appeal from non-final orders from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.
Jacobs Legal PLLC, and Bruce Jacobs, for appellant.
Locke Lord LLP, and Steven J. Brotman (West Palm Beach), for
appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Paiz, 68 So. 3d 940, 944
(Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (holding: “To entitle a movant to an evidentiary hearing
on a motion for relief from judgment, a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must specify
the fraud with particularity and explain why the fraud, if it exists, would entitle
the movant to have the judgment set aside. Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum,
636 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). ‘If a motion does not set forth a
basis for relief on its face, then an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary, the
time and expense of needless litigation is avoided, and the policy of
preserving the finality of judgments is enhanced.’ Coleman (Parent)
Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 20 So. 3d 952, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA
2009). The matter alleged must affect the outcome of the case and not
merely be ‘de minimis.’ Thus, to obtain a hearing on a rule 1.540(b)(3)
motion, the law requires a movant ‘to demonstrate a prima facie case of
fraud, not just nibble at the edges of the concept.’ Hembd v. Dauria, 859 So.
2d 1238, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)”) (citations and quotations omitted).
See also Rusniaczek v. Tableau Fine Art Grp., Inc., 139 So. 3d 355,
357-58 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (explaining that 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”) (quotation omitted).
2