not through dismissal of a possibly meritorious claim.”). The only basis for the court’s finding that C.B. perpetrated fraud on the court was private counsel’s representation that the adoption entity denied C.B. access to her child in order to pressure her into signing the consent form. Neither regional counsel nor C.B. made any assertions regarding C.B.’s inability to see the child prior to consenting to the adoption. The court’s ruling was based entirely on what it characterized as “[private counsel’s] testimony,” which was not testimony at all but simply her unsworn argument. See Hitt v. Homes & Land Brokers, Inc., 993 So.2d 1162, 1166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (“Unsworn statements of counsel do not establish facts.”); Laussermair v. Lanssermair, 55 So.3d 705, 706-07 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (<HOLDING>); Leon Shaffer Golnick Adver., Inc. v. Cedar,
holding that the trial court did not need to conduct an evidentiary hearing when the dispute could be resolved as a matter of law holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel holding that the supreme court does not require an evidentiary hearing in every case holding no evidentiary hearing was required where the affidavits of the defendant and his wife were directly contradicted by the defendants sworn testimony during the plea hearing holding that without an evidentiary hearing former husbands counsels representations alone did not amount to clear and convincing evidence that the former wife committed fraud on the court