KERZNER v. WELCH (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Lee KERZNER, Appellant, v. Veronica WELCH, et al., Appellee.

Nos. 3D24-1134, 3D24-1135, 3D24-1136

Decided: August 06, 2025

Before LINDSEY, LOBREE and GOODEN, JJ.

Louis C. Arslanian (Hollywood), for appellant. Clayton R. Kaeiser, P.A., and Clayton R. Kaeiser, Coconut Grove, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Simonik v. Patterson, 752 So. 2d 692, 692–93 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (“The trial court has broad discretion in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and, unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's decision.“); Carricarte v. Carricarte, 961 So. 2d 1019, 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“This is particularly true where the order relies on live testimony or other evidence that the trial court is singularly well-suited to evaluate.”) (quoting Smith v. Coalition to Reduce Class Size, 827 So. 2d 959, 961 (Fla. 2002)); Jeffries v. Jeffries, 133 So. 3d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (“It was the responsibility of the trial court to determine the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve the conflicts in the evidence.”).

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Out of date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