Boardwalk at Daytona Development, LLC v. Paspalakis, 212 So. 3d 1063

Appellees (Paspalakis et al.) filed a single-count counterclaim in the trial court seeking only specific performance arising from a transaction with Boardwalk at Daytona Development, LLC (Appellant).
The trial court and this court determined specific performance was not available to Appellees.
After the appellate decision, Appellees filed a motion for rehearing seeking remand to pursue alternative remedies (money damages, reformation, rescission) not pleaded or pursued below.
The Fifth District considered Appellees’ rehearing motion and treated it as an attempt to reargue the merits and to assert new grounds post-judgment and post-appeal.
The court denied the motion for rehearing as inappropriate and meritless, explaining rehearing is limited to pointing out overlooked matters, not presenting new arguments or seeking leave to amend pleadings on rehearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether rehearing may be used to raise new claims/remedies not pleaded below	Appellees argued remand should be allowed so they may pursue alternative remedies after losing specific performance	Appellant argued rehearing cannot be used to amend pleadings or raise new grounds after appeal	Denied — rehearing cannot be used to assert new causes of action or seek leave to amend post-judgment/appeal
Whether the court overlooked facts/authorities meriting rehearing	Appellees contended the panel overlooked facts and authorities in their brief	Appellant and court contended the motion reargued the merits and misused rule 9.330	Denied — motion improperly reargued merits; court did not overlook issues
Proper scope and purpose of a motion for rehearing under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330	Appellees implicitly sought expansion of relief via rehearing	Court relied on precedent limiting rehearing to calling out oversights without new argument	Reiterated that rehearing is strictly limited and not a vehicle for continued advocacy
Whether leave to amend should be granted on rehearing	Appellees requested leave to amend or assert alternative claims on remand	Appellant opposed; court found no precedent allowing substitution of claims at rehearing	Denied — no justification for first-time leave to amend on rehearing

Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Reitzes, 631 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (motions for rehearing cannot be used to reargue the merits and should be limited)
Cleveland v. State, 887 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (rehearing must call out oversights without new argument)
Goter v. Brown, 682 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (reiterating that rehearing is not a vehicle for continued advocacy)