Yailin Oramas v. Alejandro Eduardo Pichs Asencio

Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed January 7, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-1406
Lower Tribunal No. 15-28055-FC-04
________________
Yailin Oramas ,
Appellant,
vs.
Alejandro Eduardo Pichs Asencio ,
Appellee.
An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade
County, Gisela Cardonne Ely, Senior Judge.
Francisco J. Vargas, P.A., and Francisco J. Vargas, for appellant.
Law Office of Miguel San Pedro, and Miguel San Pedro; Law Office
Jesus O. Cervantes, and Jesus O. Cervantes, for appellee.
Before LOBREE, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.

2
After it adopted a magistrate’s report and recommendation containing
an error, the trial court vacated the order modifying child support and ordered
a trial de novo. 	Appellant Yailin Oramas challenges that order on appeal.
Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the order and
ordering a trial de novo, we affirm. See Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.490(e)(3)–(4)
(“Any party affected by the order may move to vacate the order by filing a
motion to vacate within 15 days from the date of entry. . . . 	If applicable, a
motion to vacate operates as a motion for rehearing under rule 12.530.”);
Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.530(a) (“On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard
without a jury, . . . the court may open the judgment if one has been entered,
take additional testimony, and enter a new judgment.”); In re Amends. to Fla.
Fam. L. Rules of Proc., 389 So. 3d 1282, 1283 (Fla. 2024) (“Also, we amend
rules 12.490 and 12.491 by changing the deadline to file a motion to vacate
from 10 to 15 days. We also clarify, in both rules, that ‘a motion to vacate
operates as a motion for rehearing under rule 12.530.’”).
Affirmed.