With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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 DeClaire v. Yohanan, 453 So.2d 375, 377 (Fla.1984), superseded by rule on different grounds as stated in Parker v. Parker, 950 So.2d 388, 393 n. 2 (Fla.2007). 3 .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

A: holding that where partys allegations raise a colorable entitlement to relief pursuant to rule 1540b3 a formal evidentiary hearing is required
B: 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
C: recognizing that trial court is obligated to conduct evidentiary hearing only when defendant makes a colorable showing of extrinsic influence 
D: holding that an evidentiary hearing is not required if there are no factual issues in dispute
A.