final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Lower
Tribunal No. 14-25640 David C. Miller, Judge.
Offices of Trujillo & Associates, P.A., and Annabella
Trujillo, for appellant.
Francisco Vargas, Esq., P.A., and Francisco J. Vargas, for
SUAREZ, SCALES and LUCK, JJ.
Mario Augusto Franco, the husband, and appellee Marcia Ximena
Thomas, the wife, entered into an oral settlement agreement
during their March 14, 2016 marriage dissolution trial. One
element of settlement was that each party would retain his or
her non-marital assets, one of which, the family home, was
purchased and owned solely by Franco prior to the marriage.
On April 5, 2016, the trial court entered a final judgment of
dissolution of marriage that incorporated the parties'
settlement agreement. Thomas neither moved for re-hearing nor
appealed the final judgment. Notwithstanding the dissolution
judgment's dispossessing Thomas of any ownership interest
in the home, Thomas and the two minor children of the
marriage remained living in this home. Franco filed a
separate unlawful detainer action, seeking to evict them from
the home. Franco's unlawful detainer action was
transferred to the circuit court's family division.
5, 2016, pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.540(b)(1) and (3),  Thomas filed in the dissolution action a
motion to vacate the final dissolution of marriage judgment,
arguing that the dissolution judgment was the result of
mistake, surprise, coercion and duress. Franco opposed
Thomas's rule 1.540(b) motion by filing a summary
judgment motion. During the October 26, 2017 hearing on
Franco's summary judgment motion, Thomas, for the first
time, introduced an alternate rationale for relief from the
dissolution judgment. Citing rule 1.540(b)(5),  Thomas argued
that, in light of Franco's effort to evict Thomas and the
children from the home, the final dissolution judgment was
"no longer equitable." Essentially, Thomas argued
that, when it entered the final dissolution judgment based on
the parties' settlement agreement, the trial court erred
by not taking into consideration where the couple's minor
children would live post-dissolution. See Dorsett v.
Dorsett, 902 So.2d 947, 951-52 (Fla 4th DCA
2005)(reversing a final dissolution judgment premised upon
the parents' oral agreement regarding relocation of a
minor child, requiring the trial court to determine
independently that the agreed-upon arrangement does not harm
the interests of the child). In separate orders on appeal,
the trial court denied Franco's summary judgment motion
and granted Thomas's rule 1.540 motion (thereby vacating
the final dissolution judgment), determining that "the
Final Judgment is not fair to the minor children."
reverse the trial court's order vacating the final
judgment of dissolution. If Thomas wished to challenge the
final judgment of dissolution on legal grounds (for example,
the judgment's alleged non-compliance with the dictates
of Dorsett), it was incumbent upon Thomas either to
seek a timely rehearing from the dissolution judgment
pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure
1.530 or to appeal the final judgment. Neither
rule 1.540, nor its family law equivalent (rule 12.540), is
an appropriate vehicle to challenge a judgment based upon
alleged legal error. Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So.2d
443, 445 (Fla. 1990); Theodorides v. Theodorides,
201 So.3d 141, 143-44 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). Thomas has not
provided us with any authority that would extend the limited
scope of rule 1.540(b)(5) to the situation presented here.
 Rule 1.540(b)(1) and (3) read in
relevant part: "On motion and upon such terms as are
just, the court may relieve a party . . . from a final
judgment . . . for the following reasons: (1) mistake,
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; . . . (3) fraud
(whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic),
misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party .
. . ." In 2016, Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.540
provided simply that rule 1.540 governed all motions seeking
relief from family law judgments. Effective March 16, 2017,
the Florida Supreme Court amended rule 12.540 to parallel
rule 1.540. In re: Amendments to Fla. Family Law Rules of
Procedure, 214 So.3d 400, 465 (Fla. 2017). In this case,
the mid-proceedings rule change had no effect below, nor does
it affect our determination of the appeal.
 Rule 1.540(b)(5) reads in relevant
part: "On motion and upon such terms as are just, the
court may relieve a party . . . from a final judgment . . .
for the following reasons: (5) . . . it is no longer
equitable that the judgment . . . ...