Brian A. Dupree appeals the trial courts denial of his July 10, 2023 motion, filed under Rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, to vacate a December 12, 2022 order denying his motion to intervene in this foreclosure action. Other than clerical error, the grounds for granting a motion to vacate under Rule 1.540 are limited to:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial or rehearing;
(3) fraud (whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party;
(4) that the judgment, decree, or order is void; or
(5) that the judgment, decree, or order has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment, decree, or order upon which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment, decree, or order should have prospective application.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b). “Significantly, the contention that the order was simply wrong as a matter of law on the merits is not one of the enumerated grounds for relief under rule 1.540.” Balmoral Condo. Assn v. Grimaldi, 107 So. 3d 1149, 1152 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).
A review of Duprees Initial Brief in this matter reveals he raises grounds that are, at best, legal error reviewable under a timely filed Rule 1.530 motion for rehearing or direct appeal but not cognizable under the limited grounds for relief available under Rule 1.540(b). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the order under review. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.315(a) (“After service of the initial brief ․ the court may summarily affirm the order to be reviewed if the court finds that no preliminary basis for reversal has been demonstrated.”).
Affirmed.
PER CURIAM.