HERNANDEZ v. ZUCKER (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Yvette Lynn HERNANDEZ, etc., Appellant, v. Mark A. ZUCKER, Appellee.

No. 3D20-1397

Decided: August 11, 2021

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

Lorenzen Law P.A., and Dirk Lorenzen, for appellant. Marro Law P.A., and Meaghan K. Marro (Plantation), for appellee.

Affirmed. See Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1203 (Fla. 1980) (noting: “In reviewing a true discretionary act, the appellate court must fully recognize the superior vantage point of the trial judge and should apply the ‘reasonableness’ test to determine whether the trial judge abused [its] discretion. If reasonable [people] could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, then the action is not unreasonable and there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion. The discretionary ruling of the trial judge should be disturbed only when [the] decision fails to satisfy this test of reasonableness.”); Castillo v. Castillo, 59 So. 3d 221 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Pierre v. Pierre, 185 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).

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Out of date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