← Case library
3rd DCAOctober 14, 2026Appeal Dismissed⭐ Notable

Equipment Sales of South Florida, LLC v. Pro Max Investment Holdings, Inc.

Case No. 3D2025-2501

After a default eviction judgment, the tenant's first rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate was denied on the merits and the tenant voluntarily dismissed its appeal. The tenant then filed a second motion under rule 1.540(b)(5) based on facts admittedly known when the first motion was filed. The Third District dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a successive rule 1.540 motion resting on previously available grounds is neither 'authorized' nor 'timely' under rule 9.130(a)(5) and cannot restart the appellate clock.

Key facts

  • Equipment Sales of South Florida, LLC obtained a default eviction judgment against tenant Pro Max Investment Holdings, Inc. in the trial court.
  • The tenant filed a first rule 1.540(b) motion to vacate, which was denied on the merits; the tenant then voluntarily dismissed its appeal of that denial.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

The opinion gives practitioners a crisp, citable rule that rule 1.540 affords a single, comprehensive opportunity for relief and that the first appeal is effectively the last chance to challenge a denial. It also… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.