Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the husband’s motion did not state facts that constituted fraud and, instead, was an attempt to rehash matters fully explored at trial
• stating that “a rule 1.540(b)(3) motion must clearly and concisely set out the essential facts of the fraud, and not just legal conclusions”
• ob-serving that ''[w]here fraud exists, it is not so subtle a concept that it cannot be described with precision”
• holding evidentiary hearing not required because motion did not allege fraud with sufficient specificity
• affirming denial of pro se husband's motion for relief from judgment, without evidentiary hearing, where motion attempted to relitigate issues raised at trial
• “The pendency of the appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to hear the rule 1.540 motion.” (citation omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).