MENENDEZ v. BONAFONTE (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Manuel J. MENENDEZ, et al., Appellants, v. Rafael BONAFONTE, Appellee.

No. 3D22-735

Decided: October 25, 2023

Before LOGUE, C.J., and LINDSEY and LOBREE, JJ.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered and Roy D. Wasson; Law Offices of Robert F. Reynolds, P.A., and Robert F. Reynolds (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellants. Kula & Associates, P.A., and Elliot B. Kula and W. Aaron Daniel and William D. Mueller, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Archange v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., 314 So. 3d 717, 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (“Fratangelo v. Coosemans, 264 So. 3d 1079, 1079 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (‘When the trial court conducts a full evidentiary hearing on a motion to enforce settlement, “[t]he findings of the trial court, as the trier of fact, come to this court clothed with a presumption of correctness, and where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the actions of the trial court, the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support of the trial court's judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict.” ’ (quoting Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So. 2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998))).”).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network