Preview
Filing # 195219839 E-Filed 04/01/2024 04:07:56 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CENTRAL CARILLON BEACH Complex Business Division
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
et al., Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Plaintiffs, Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
vs.
CARILLON HOTEL, LLC and Z CAPITAL
PARTNERS, LLC,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’
REVISED MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
Defendants Carillon Hotel, LLC and Z Capital Partners, LLC (collectively “Carillon
Hotel”) respond to the Revised Motion for Status Conference of Plaintiffs Central Carillon Beach
Condominium Association, Inc., South Carillon Beach Condominium Association, Inc., and North
Carillon Beach Condominium Association, Inc. [DE 1126], as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ revised motion for a status conference, set on motion calendar, ostensibly
requests an “immediate status conference to terminate or coordinate hearing and resolving pending
motions, which will allow the parties to effectuate the November 2023 final judgment [DE 1103]
entered by this Court’s predecessor” (emphasis added).
2. Plaintiffs did not confer with Carillon Hotel prior to filing the motion, ignoring
the Court’s October 1, 2020 Order on Motions and Memo Requirements and its “Mandatory Order
to Confer and Certification Requirement” [DE 403]. 1 Plaintiffs then rebuffed Carillon Hotel’s
1
The Order has a section entitled “MANDATORY ORDER TO CONFER AND
CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT” in uppercase letters that requires “parties meet and confer
prior to filing any motion to determine if issues can be narrowed, the appropriate amount of time
Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
requests to agree on a special set hearing date and a briefing schedule on the rehearing motions
directed to the Final Judgment. Plaintiffs also disregarded Carillon Hotel’s objection to having this
matter heard on the Court’s motion calendar.
3. Carillon Hotel anticipates Plaintiffs will seek a dispositive ruling at the motion
calendar seeking to prematurely and erroneously “terminate” the rehearing motions on complex
legal issues and the complicated procedural history of these consolidated cases without the benefit
of briefing or meaningful oral argument. That would be improper.
4. The complicated procedural history includes retired Judge Michael Hanzman’s
January 30, 2023, 40-page Order on the Associations’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
Condominium Act Claims (Argument 1) [DE 1027] (“Condominium Act Order”), the only issue
addressed by Carillon Hotel’s Motion for Rehearing [DE 1107].
5. The issue that this Court should address on rehearing concerns the portion of the
Final Judgment that directs implementation of the Condominium Act Order without further
guidance. The Court’s immediate predecessor, Judge Jennifer Bailey, who retired from the Court
on November 30, 2023, ordered implementation of the Condominium Act Order but stated: “[t]he
Court will leave it to the appellate court to divine exactly how to implement this ruling and what
the procedure should be in light of [the] silence in the summary judgment order.” 2
required for hearing if hearing is requested, and any other issues….” Plaintiffs’ “revised” motion
contains the post-filing conferral.
2
Final Judgment at n. 12. The Final Judgment is an extraordinary achievement by Judge Bailey,
substantially bringing these consolidated cases to a final conclusion after assimilating in a very
short time period almost eight years of litigation including extensive briefing, hearings, a jury trial,
over 1000 docket entries, and the work of six prior judges on complex issues and Plaintiffs’ novel
claims that continued to expand up through entry of the Final Judgment.
2
Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
6. Plaintiffs are taking inconsistent positions regarding rehearing on the Final
Judgment and the Condominium Act Order. Plaintiffs assert, erroneously, that the Court’s hands
are tied as a successor judge from considering Carillon Hotel’s motion for rehearing regarding the
Final Judgment and implementation of the Condominium Act Order that the predecessor judge, by
her candid admission, did not complete. At the same time, Plaintiffs insist that the Court hear their
pre-judgment motion for provisional remedies seeking relief under the Condominium Act Order
that the Final Judgment either did not grant or denied outright.
7. Under either scenario, this Court must complete the work of the predecessor judge
regarding the Condominium Act Order. The correct procedural basis to do that is by ruling on
Carillon Hotel’s rehearing motion. Once this Court resolves the rehearing motion, the appeal can
proceed for plenary review pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(2)(C) (“if a notice of appeal is
filed before the rendition of an order disposing of all such motions, the appeal must be held in
abeyance until the motions are either withdrawn or resolved by the rendition of an order disposing
of the last such motion”).
8. Appellants’ description of the Condominium Act Order in the proceedings leading
up to the Final Judgment and in their motion for a status conference is exaggerated and unsupported
by the contents of the order. The Condominium Act Order addresses the issue of the relationship
between statutory common elements under the Condominium Act and shared facilities created by
declarations for mixed-used developments similar to the Carillon Hotel. This issue is now being
litigated throughout Florida’s courts.
9. The Condominium Act Order declared a general rule of law on the issue to guide
further proceedings in the case in a long, but nonetheless limited order, stating:
The Court concludes that the Master Declaration here is illegal/void to the extent,
but only to the extent, it gives the Hotel Lot owner the right to own, control and
3
Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
assess for the cost of operating/maintaining Shared Facilities that are
“condominium property which is not included within the units," or otherwise
"common elements" as defined by Chapter §718.108(1).
Condominium Act Order at 29 (emphasis in original).
10. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ characterization, the Condominium Act Order did not apply
that rule to the Master Declaration, it did not identify any provision of the Master Declaration that
it determined violated the Act, it did not order the turnover of any property to Plaintiffs, and it did
not address or even discuss the Plaintiffs’ condominium declarations.
11. The trial court’s inability to “divine” how to implement the Condominium Act
Order is an indication of the limited relief it granted and, perhaps, its problematic nature. It should
be noted that Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice by Judge John W. Thornton in
August 2018 [DEs 213 and 215]. Pursuant to a February 7, 2022 Order by Judge Hanzman [DE
739] allowing Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaints by pleadings claims “not
foreclosed by the bankruptcy sale order”, each Plaintiff included a statement waiving all claims
against property Carillon Hotel purchased in the bankruptcy sale from the prior hotel lot owner:
North Carillon does not challenge nor seek to undo or disturb Defendants’
ownership of any property or assets purchased via the 2014 Purchase Agreement
and authorized by the bankruptcy Sale Order. North Carillon does not seek to obtain
or reclassify as belonging to North Carillon any real property purchased via the
2014 Purchase Agreement and authorized by the bankruptcy Sale Order (emphasis
in original).
These are the claims Plaintiffs are now pursuing, and have been pursuing for some time,
notwithstanding the clear and broad waivers in their amended complaints.
12. In determining the process to resolve the rehearing motions, Carillon Hotel also
asks this Court to consider Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss their appeal to the Third District Court of
Appeal [DE 1110] and Carillon Hotel’s cross appeal, and their description of the Final Judgment
in their motion to dismiss. Carillon Hotel has filed in the trial court file with this response:
4
Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss, its response, and the Order of the Third District Court of Appeal
denying their motion.
13. Plaintiffs argued to the appellate court that the Final Judgment “delegated to [the
appellate court] to complete certain tasks that should have been resolved by the trial court before
a final judgment was entered”; “left undone necessary trial-court judicial labor”; resolved only
some of the issues in the litigation but not all”; left “implementing and enforcing a summary
judgment order … to further court action”, and “expressly states that further judicial labor
remains.” Motion to Dismiss at 2 – 3 and 15.
14. Carillon Hotel agrees with Plaintiffs’ characterization of the Final Judgment as
having “left undone” tasks regarding the Condominium Act Order and addresses that issue in its
Motion for Rehearing.
15. Carillon Hotel disagrees with Plaintiffs’ attempt to limit this Court’s authority to
complete this work and their reliance on the general limitations on the power of a successor judge
to rule on matters overlooked or omitted by a predecessor judge under the facts of these cases.
16. The successor judge will be able to rule on the one issue raised in Carillon Hotel’s
rehearing motion regarding the omitted work on the Condominium Act Order and complete the
work of the trial court within the limitations placed on a successor judge. “A successor judge,
under proper circumstances, may rule [on rehearing] upon a matter overlooked or omitted by the
predecessor judge, but may not correct errors committed by the predecessor.” Cardenas v. Bank
of New York Mellon Tr. Co., N.A., --- So. 3d ---, No. 3D23-0819, 2024 WL 591988, at *1 (Fla. 3d
DCA, Feb. 14, 2024); Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales del Ecuador, 530 So. 2d
971, 973 n.7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (en banc)) (“A successor judge, under proper circumstances,
may rule [on rehearing] upon a matter overlooked or omitted by the predecessor judge, but may
5
Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
not correct errors committed by the predecessor … Therefore, in some circumstances an order
may become ‘final’ in some respects notwithstanding the timely filing of a motion for rehearing”);
see also O'Neal v. Darling, 321 So. 3d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“A successor judge cannot
review, modify, or reverse, upon the merits on the same facts, the final orders of his predecessor
in the absence of fraud or mistake.”).
17. Carillon Hotel argued to the Third District Court of Appeal in opposition to
Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss that “[a] careful review by the successor judge in the Complex
Business Litigation Division of the Condominium Act Order, viewed in its proper procedural
context, along with the Master Declaration and the three condominium association declarations,
should result in a summary dismissal of the claim.” Carillon Hotel also argued, citing the same
cases cited above, that “[t]he trial court can address these issues on rehearing while the appeal
remains in abeyance. The successor judge will be able to rule on the rehearing motions and
complete the work of the trial court within the limitations placed on a successor judge.” The Third
District Court of Appeal promptly denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss, agreeing with Carillon
Hotel’s position.
18. Regarding the other exceptions to the limitations on a successor judge’s authority
to review, modify or reverse upon the merits on the same facts of a predecessor’s final order –
Rule 1.540 fraud and mistake – they are inapplicable here. “The ‘clerical mistakes’ referred to in
section (a) of Rule 1.540 include only ‘errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission,
and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order,’ the latter
of which must be corrected pursuant to Rule 1.540(b). Freeman v. Sanders, 562 So. 2d 834, 835
(Fla. 1st DCA 1990), (quoting Keller v. Belcher, 256 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)
(emphasis in original)). Accord, Peters v. Peters, 479 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“The
6
Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
mistakes covered by this rule have been defined to conclude ‘only errors or mistakes arising from
accidental slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the
judgment or order,” quoting Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d, 1162 (Fla. 1979)
(emphasis in text)).
19. The issues Plaintiffs seek to address under this exception did not arise from an
accidental oversight or omission but were explicitly addressed in the Final Judgment.
CONCLUSION
The Court should order the parties to brief the rehearing motions, identifying those sections
that they believe the Court can address within the limitations placed on successor judges, and
schedule a special set hearing on the motions.
Respectfully submitted,
WEISSMAN & DERVISHI, P.A.
By: /s/ Brian S. Dervishi
Brian S. Dervishi
Luke T. Jacobs
Fla. Bar Nos. 350303 and 1024787
One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1700
Miami, Florida 33131
305-347-4070 (Telephone)
bdervishi@wdpalaw.com
ljacobs@wdpalaw.com
service@wdpalaw.com
Avery Samet
NY Bar No. 4245965
AMINI LLC
131 West 35th Street, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10001
(212) 490-4700 (Telephone)
asamet@aminillc.com
Counsel for Carillon Hotel, LLC and
Z Capital Partners, LLC
7
Consolidated Cases
Case No. 16-11172 CA 43
Case No. 16-07886 CA 43
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I CERTIFY that on April 1, 2024, the foregoing was served by email via the Florida Courts
E-Filing Portal on the persons listed below.
/s/ Brian S. Dervishi
Brian S. Dervishi
Daniel M. Landis, Esq.
Tedesco & Landis, P.A.
dan@landislawyer.com
Attorneys for South Carillon Beach Condominium Associations, Inc.
Stevan Pardo, Esq.
Paul A. Shelowitz, Esq.
Pardo Jackson Gainsburg & Shelowitz, PL
spardo@pardojackson.com
pshelowitz@pardojackson.com
Attorneys for Central Carillon Beach Condominium Associations, Inc.
Eugene E. Stearns, Esq.
Jason S. Koslowe, Esq.
Ezra S. Greenberg, Esq.
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
estearns@stearnsweaver.com
jkoslowe@stearnsweaver.com
egreenberg@stearnsweaver.com
Attorneys for North Carillon Beach Condominium Association, Inc.
8
Preview
Filing # 195219839 E-Filed 04/01/2024 04:07:56 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CENTRAL CARILLON BEACH Complex Business Division CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., et al., Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Plaintiffs, Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 vs. CARILLON HOTEL, LLC and Z CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Defendants. DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ REVISED MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE Defendants Carillon Hotel, LLC and Z Capital Partners, LLC (collectively “Carillon Hotel”) respond to the Revised Motion for Status Conference of Plaintiffs Central Carillon Beach Condominium Association, Inc., South Carillon Beach Condominium Association, Inc., and North Carillon Beach Condominium Association, Inc. [DE 1126], as follows: 1. Plaintiffs’ revised motion for a status conference, set on motion calendar, ostensibly requests an “immediate status conference to terminate or coordinate hearing and resolving pending motions, which will allow the parties to effectuate the November 2023 final judgment [DE 1103] entered by this Court’s predecessor” (emphasis added). 2. Plaintiffs did not confer with Carillon Hotel prior to filing the motion, ignoring the Court’s October 1, 2020 Order on Motions and Memo Requirements and its “Mandatory Order to Confer and Certification Requirement” [DE 403]. 1 Plaintiffs then rebuffed Carillon Hotel’s 1 The Order has a section entitled “MANDATORY ORDER TO CONFER AND CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT” in uppercase letters that requires “parties meet and confer prior to filing any motion to determine if issues can be narrowed, the appropriate amount of time Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 requests to agree on a special set hearing date and a briefing schedule on the rehearing motions directed to the Final Judgment. Plaintiffs also disregarded Carillon Hotel’s objection to having this matter heard on the Court’s motion calendar. 3. Carillon Hotel anticipates Plaintiffs will seek a dispositive ruling at the motion calendar seeking to prematurely and erroneously “terminate” the rehearing motions on complex legal issues and the complicated procedural history of these consolidated cases without the benefit of briefing or meaningful oral argument. That would be improper. 4. The complicated procedural history includes retired Judge Michael Hanzman’s January 30, 2023, 40-page Order on the Associations’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Condominium Act Claims (Argument 1) [DE 1027] (“Condominium Act Order”), the only issue addressed by Carillon Hotel’s Motion for Rehearing [DE 1107]. 5. The issue that this Court should address on rehearing concerns the portion of the Final Judgment that directs implementation of the Condominium Act Order without further guidance. The Court’s immediate predecessor, Judge Jennifer Bailey, who retired from the Court on November 30, 2023, ordered implementation of the Condominium Act Order but stated: “[t]he Court will leave it to the appellate court to divine exactly how to implement this ruling and what the procedure should be in light of [the] silence in the summary judgment order.” 2 required for hearing if hearing is requested, and any other issues….” Plaintiffs’ “revised” motion contains the post-filing conferral. 2 Final Judgment at n. 12. The Final Judgment is an extraordinary achievement by Judge Bailey, substantially bringing these consolidated cases to a final conclusion after assimilating in a very short time period almost eight years of litigation including extensive briefing, hearings, a jury trial, over 1000 docket entries, and the work of six prior judges on complex issues and Plaintiffs’ novel claims that continued to expand up through entry of the Final Judgment. 2 Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 6. Plaintiffs are taking inconsistent positions regarding rehearing on the Final Judgment and the Condominium Act Order. Plaintiffs assert, erroneously, that the Court’s hands are tied as a successor judge from considering Carillon Hotel’s motion for rehearing regarding the Final Judgment and implementation of the Condominium Act Order that the predecessor judge, by her candid admission, did not complete. At the same time, Plaintiffs insist that the Court hear their pre-judgment motion for provisional remedies seeking relief under the Condominium Act Order that the Final Judgment either did not grant or denied outright. 7. Under either scenario, this Court must complete the work of the predecessor judge regarding the Condominium Act Order. The correct procedural basis to do that is by ruling on Carillon Hotel’s rehearing motion. Once this Court resolves the rehearing motion, the appeal can proceed for plenary review pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.020(h)(2)(C) (“if a notice of appeal is filed before the rendition of an order disposing of all such motions, the appeal must be held in abeyance until the motions are either withdrawn or resolved by the rendition of an order disposing of the last such motion”). 8. Appellants’ description of the Condominium Act Order in the proceedings leading up to the Final Judgment and in their motion for a status conference is exaggerated and unsupported by the contents of the order. The Condominium Act Order addresses the issue of the relationship between statutory common elements under the Condominium Act and shared facilities created by declarations for mixed-used developments similar to the Carillon Hotel. This issue is now being litigated throughout Florida’s courts. 9. The Condominium Act Order declared a general rule of law on the issue to guide further proceedings in the case in a long, but nonetheless limited order, stating: The Court concludes that the Master Declaration here is illegal/void to the extent, but only to the extent, it gives the Hotel Lot owner the right to own, control and 3 Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 assess for the cost of operating/maintaining Shared Facilities that are “condominium property which is not included within the units," or otherwise "common elements" as defined by Chapter §718.108(1). Condominium Act Order at 29 (emphasis in original). 10. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ characterization, the Condominium Act Order did not apply that rule to the Master Declaration, it did not identify any provision of the Master Declaration that it determined violated the Act, it did not order the turnover of any property to Plaintiffs, and it did not address or even discuss the Plaintiffs’ condominium declarations. 11. The trial court’s inability to “divine” how to implement the Condominium Act Order is an indication of the limited relief it granted and, perhaps, its problematic nature. It should be noted that Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice by Judge John W. Thornton in August 2018 [DEs 213 and 215]. Pursuant to a February 7, 2022 Order by Judge Hanzman [DE 739] allowing Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaints by pleadings claims “not foreclosed by the bankruptcy sale order”, each Plaintiff included a statement waiving all claims against property Carillon Hotel purchased in the bankruptcy sale from the prior hotel lot owner: North Carillon does not challenge nor seek to undo or disturb Defendants’ ownership of any property or assets purchased via the 2014 Purchase Agreement and authorized by the bankruptcy Sale Order. North Carillon does not seek to obtain or reclassify as belonging to North Carillon any real property purchased via the 2014 Purchase Agreement and authorized by the bankruptcy Sale Order (emphasis in original). These are the claims Plaintiffs are now pursuing, and have been pursuing for some time, notwithstanding the clear and broad waivers in their amended complaints. 12. In determining the process to resolve the rehearing motions, Carillon Hotel also asks this Court to consider Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss their appeal to the Third District Court of Appeal [DE 1110] and Carillon Hotel’s cross appeal, and their description of the Final Judgment in their motion to dismiss. Carillon Hotel has filed in the trial court file with this response: 4 Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss, its response, and the Order of the Third District Court of Appeal denying their motion. 13. Plaintiffs argued to the appellate court that the Final Judgment “delegated to [the appellate court] to complete certain tasks that should have been resolved by the trial court before a final judgment was entered”; “left undone necessary trial-court judicial labor”; resolved only some of the issues in the litigation but not all”; left “implementing and enforcing a summary judgment order … to further court action”, and “expressly states that further judicial labor remains.” Motion to Dismiss at 2 – 3 and 15. 14. Carillon Hotel agrees with Plaintiffs’ characterization of the Final Judgment as having “left undone” tasks regarding the Condominium Act Order and addresses that issue in its Motion for Rehearing. 15. Carillon Hotel disagrees with Plaintiffs’ attempt to limit this Court’s authority to complete this work and their reliance on the general limitations on the power of a successor judge to rule on matters overlooked or omitted by a predecessor judge under the facts of these cases. 16. The successor judge will be able to rule on the one issue raised in Carillon Hotel’s rehearing motion regarding the omitted work on the Condominium Act Order and complete the work of the trial court within the limitations placed on a successor judge. “A successor judge, under proper circumstances, may rule [on rehearing] upon a matter overlooked or omitted by the predecessor judge, but may not correct errors committed by the predecessor.” Cardenas v. Bank of New York Mellon Tr. Co., N.A., --- So. 3d ---, No. 3D23-0819, 2024 WL 591988, at *1 (Fla. 3d DCA, Feb. 14, 2024); Marsh & McLennan, Inc. v. Aerolineas Nacionales del Ecuador, 530 So. 2d 971, 973 n.7 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (en banc)) (“A successor judge, under proper circumstances, may rule [on rehearing] upon a matter overlooked or omitted by the predecessor judge, but may 5 Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 not correct errors committed by the predecessor … Therefore, in some circumstances an order may become ‘final’ in some respects notwithstanding the timely filing of a motion for rehearing”); see also O'Neal v. Darling, 321 So. 3d 309, 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“A successor judge cannot review, modify, or reverse, upon the merits on the same facts, the final orders of his predecessor in the absence of fraud or mistake.”). 17. Carillon Hotel argued to the Third District Court of Appeal in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss that “[a] careful review by the successor judge in the Complex Business Litigation Division of the Condominium Act Order, viewed in its proper procedural context, along with the Master Declaration and the three condominium association declarations, should result in a summary dismissal of the claim.” Carillon Hotel also argued, citing the same cases cited above, that “[t]he trial court can address these issues on rehearing while the appeal remains in abeyance. The successor judge will be able to rule on the rehearing motions and complete the work of the trial court within the limitations placed on a successor judge.” The Third District Court of Appeal promptly denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss, agreeing with Carillon Hotel’s position. 18. Regarding the other exceptions to the limitations on a successor judge’s authority to review, modify or reverse upon the merits on the same facts of a predecessor’s final order – Rule 1.540 fraud and mistake – they are inapplicable here. “The ‘clerical mistakes’ referred to in section (a) of Rule 1.540 include only ‘errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order,’ the latter of which must be corrected pursuant to Rule 1.540(b). Freeman v. Sanders, 562 So. 2d 834, 835 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), (quoting Keller v. Belcher, 256 So.2d 561, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971) (emphasis in original)). Accord, Peters v. Peters, 479 So. 2d 840, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“The 6 Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 mistakes covered by this rule have been defined to conclude ‘only errors or mistakes arising from accidental slip or omission, and not errors or mistakes in the substance of what is decided by the judgment or order,” quoting Town of Hialeah Gardens v. Hendry, 376 So. 2d, 1162 (Fla. 1979) (emphasis in text)). 19. The issues Plaintiffs seek to address under this exception did not arise from an accidental oversight or omission but were explicitly addressed in the Final Judgment. CONCLUSION The Court should order the parties to brief the rehearing motions, identifying those sections that they believe the Court can address within the limitations placed on successor judges, and schedule a special set hearing on the motions. Respectfully submitted, WEISSMAN & DERVISHI, P.A. By: /s/ Brian S. Dervishi Brian S. Dervishi Luke T. Jacobs Fla. Bar Nos. 350303 and 1024787 One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1700 Miami, Florida 33131 305-347-4070 (Telephone) bdervishi@wdpalaw.com ljacobs@wdpalaw.com service@wdpalaw.com Avery Samet NY Bar No. 4245965 AMINI LLC 131 West 35th Street, 12th Floor New York, NY 10001 (212) 490-4700 (Telephone) asamet@aminillc.com Counsel for Carillon Hotel, LLC and Z Capital Partners, LLC 7 Consolidated Cases Case No. 16-11172 CA 43 Case No. 16-07886 CA 43 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that on April 1, 2024, the foregoing was served by email via the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal on the persons listed below. /s/ Brian S. Dervishi Brian S. Dervishi Daniel M. Landis, Esq. Tedesco & Landis, P.A. dan@landislawyer.com Attorneys for South Carillon Beach Condominium Associations, Inc. Stevan Pardo, Esq. Paul A. Shelowitz, Esq. Pardo Jackson Gainsburg & Shelowitz, PL spardo@pardojackson.com pshelowitz@pardojackson.com Attorneys for Central Carillon Beach Condominium Associations, Inc. Eugene E. Stearns, Esq. Jason S. Koslowe, Esq. Ezra S. Greenberg, Esq. Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A. estearns@stearnsweaver.com jkoslowe@stearnsweaver.com egreenberg@stearnsweaver.com Attorneys for North Carillon Beach Condominium Association, Inc. 8