SMITH v. SMITH (2021)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Pierre Michel SMITH, Appellant, v. Lydie Ladouceur SMITH, Appellee.

No. 3D20-1610

Decided: August 25, 2021

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski, for appellant. Kaplan Loebl, LLC, and Liliana Loebl and Amanda B. Haberman, for appellee.

Affirmed. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, 497-98 (Fla. 1999) (holding: “When reviewing the order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion. If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion”); Umana v. Citizens Prop. Insur. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933, 934-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding: “The absence of a hearing transcript at which the trial court made this decision prevents any meaningful review of whether the trial court abused its discretion in this regard”) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979); Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018); Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)).

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Out of date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