was bifurcated for separate determinations on liability and damages. 2 . DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla.1984), superseded by rule on different grounds as stated in Parker v. Parker, 950 So.2d 388, 393 n. 2 (Fla.2007). 3 . See Molinos Del S.A. v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 947 So.2d 521, 524-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (noting that rule 1.540 is substantially similar to federal rule 60 and therefore relying on federal case law where no Florida case was factually on point). 4 . We recognize that an evidentiary hearing is only required where a party specifies the fraudulent conduct rather than just mere legal conclusions. See Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So.2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Welden, 483 So.2d 487, 489 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (<HOLDING>). And as we have already noted, Maddalena did
recognizing that trial court is obligated to conduct evidentiary hearing only when defendant makes a colorable showing of extrinsic influence  holding that where partys allegations raise a colorable entitlement to relief pursuant to rule 1540b3 a formal evidentiary hearing is required holding that when a petitioner seeks an evidentiary hearing in state court to develop the factual basis of a claim but the state court denies such a hearing entitlement to a federal court hearing is analyzed pursuant to preaedpa law rather than the standards set out in  2254e2 holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute holding that similar argument did not raise a colorable question of law for purposes of jurisdiction