formal evidentiary hearing in Florida

2015Co. v. Welden, 483 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“[W]here the moving party's allegations raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required.”).

2015Co. v. Welden, 483 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“[W]here the moving party’s allegations raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required.”).

2021See Scudder v. Scudder, 228 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“[T]he denial of Ms. Scudder’s challenge to the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction without affording the parties an evidentiary hearing was error that requires reversal.”); Minda v. Minda, 190 So. 3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that former wife’s motion for relief from default judgment dissolving her marriage in which she 6 challenged the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction was facially sufficient and remanding “for a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion”); Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fl

2017See Minda v. Minda, 190 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that former wife’s motion for relief from default judgment dissolving her marriage in which, she challenged-the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction was facially sufficient and remanding “for a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))); Hirsch v. Hirsch, 136 So.3d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“Because it is not clear from the record whether the trial court had subject matter, jurisdiction to order the Former Husband to change the beneficiary

2021See Scudder v. Scudder, 228 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“[T]he denial of Ms. Scudder’s challenge to the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction without affording the parties an evidentiary hearing was error that requires reversal.”); Minda v. Minda, 190 So. 3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that former wife’s motion for relief from default judgment dissolving her marriage in which she 6 challenged the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction was facially sufficient and remanding “for a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion”); Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fl

2017See Minda v. Minda, 190 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that former wife’s motion for relief from default judgment dissolving her marriage in which, she challenged-the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction was facially sufficient and remanding “for a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))); Hirsch v. Hirsch, 136 So.3d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“Because it is not clear from the record whether the trial court had subject matter, jurisdiction to order the Former Husband to change the beneficiary

2018See Minda v. Minda, 190 So. 3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016); see also Pallai v. Dep't of Revenue, 955 So. 2d 1205, 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("The trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to consider the merits of the [motion].").

2018See Minda v. Minda , 190 So.3d 1126 , 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) ; see also Pallai v. Dep't of Revenue , 955 So.2d 1205 , 1206 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) ("The trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to consider the merits of the [motion].").

2014“If the allegations in the moving party’s motion for relief from judgment ‘raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3)’s relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required.’ ” Dynasty Express Corp. v. Weiss, 675 So.2d 235, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

2012SunTrust Bank v. Puleo, 76 So.3d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“If the allegations in the moving party’s motion for relief from judgment ‘raise a color-able entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3)’s relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required.’ ”); Dynasty Express Corp. v. Weiss, 675 So.2d 235, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.

2011Co. v. Welden, 483 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“[Wjhere the moving party’s allegations raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required.”); see also Rosenthal v. Ford, 443 So.2d 1077, 1078 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984) (“The credibility of appellant’s allegations should only be determined by the trial court after an evidentiary hearing thereon.”).

1986Rosenthal v. Ford, 443 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Pelekis v. Florida Keys Boys Club, 302 So.2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), cert. denied, 312 So.2d 751 (Fla. 1975); Stella v. Stella, 418 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

2005A formal evidentiary hearing is not mandated by the statute.") (citation omitted); Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ("[A]n evidentiary hearing is not mandated by the statute before a trial court has authority to permit an amendment.

1997Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 677 So.2d 22 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). [3] See Perlman v. Prudential Ins.

2021See Scudder v. Scudder, 228 So. 3d 703, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (“[T]he denial of Ms. Scudder’s challenge to the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction without affording the parties an evidentiary hearing was error that requires reversal.”); Minda v. Minda, 190 So. 3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that former wife’s motion for relief from default judgment dissolving her marriage in which she 6 challenged the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction was facially sufficient and remanding “for a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion”); Douglas v. Johnson, 65 So. 3d 605, 606 (Fl

2017See Minda v. Minda, 190 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that former wife’s motion for relief from default judgment dissolving her marriage in which, she challenged-the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction was facially sufficient and remanding “for a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))); Hirsch v. Hirsch, 136 So.3d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“Because it is not clear from the record whether the trial court had subject matter, jurisdiction to order the Former Husband to change the beneficiary

2017See Minda v. Minda, 190 So.3d 1126, 1128 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (holding that former wife’s motion for relief from default judgment dissolving her marriage in which, she challenged-the circuit court’s subject matter jurisdiction was facially sufficient and remanding “for a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion” (citing In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800 So.2d 640, 644 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001))); Hirsch v. Hirsch, 136 So.3d 622, 623 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (“Because it is not clear from the record whether the trial court had subject matter, jurisdiction to order the Former Husband to change the beneficiary

2012Finally, the Board’s decision not to mitigate the statutory penalty is not an abuse of discretion. 3 See Mendez, 943 So.2d at 911 ; Grimberg, 542 So.2d at 457, 458 .

2012SunTrust Bank v. Puleo, 76 So.3d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (“If the allegations in the moving party’s motion for relief from judgment ‘raise a color-able entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3)’s relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required.’ ”); Dynasty Express Corp. v. Weiss, 675 So.2d 235, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (quoting Southern Bell Tel. & Tel.

2007McMahon v. Carter, 818 So.2d 560, 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (reversing an order granting a new trial entered several months after the trial court denied a rule 1.530 motion for new trial without prejudice and reserving jurisdiction to hold a formal evidentiary hearing).

2006Co. v. Welden, 483 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) ("[W]here the moving party's allegations raise a colorable entitlement to rule 1.540(b)(3) relief, a formal evidentiary hearing on the motion, as well as permissible discovery prior to the hearing, is required."); Kidder v. Hess, 481 So.2d 984, 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Stella v. Stella, 418 So.2d 1029 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also Robinson.

2005Pursuant to section 768.72(1), a proffer of evidence can support a trial court's determination."); Will v. Systems Eng'g Consultants, Inc., 554 So.2d 591 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see also Porter v. Ogden, Newell & Welch, 241 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.2001).