SILVERA v. EFFS (2024)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Norman “Cess” SILVERA, Appellant, v. Richard EFFS, Appellee.

No. 3D23-1657

Decided: October 23, 2024

Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ.

Jay M. Levy, P.A. and Jay M. Levy, for appellant. Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L., and Douglas C. Broeker, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Hutchings v. Liles, 86 So. 3d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“The trial court has ‘broad judicial discretion as to the source, nature, and sufficiency of the facts which [it] may consider.’ Proof which raises a reasonable presumption is sufficient to provide the basis for admission of a deposition under rule 1.330.”) (quoting Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)); Iden v. Kasden, 609 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[W]hile custom or usage may be employed in explanation and qualification of terms of a contract that would otherwise be ambiguous, it cannot operate to contravene express instructions or to contradict an express contract to the contrary.”).

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Out of date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