LLC v. Waldman Barnett, P.L., etc., Appellee. (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sterling Mirror Company, LLC, etc., Appellant, v. Waldman Barnett, P.L., etc., Appellee.

No. 3D22-429

Decided: January 04, 2023

Before EMAS, HENDON and MILLER, JJ.

Charles M. Baron, P.A., and Charles M. Baron (Hollywood), for appellant. Armstrong Teasdale LLP, and Glen H. Waldman and Marlon J. Weiss, for appellee.

Appellant, Sterling Mirror Company, LLC, a former client of Appellee Waldman Barnett, P.L., appeals the trial court's order denying its motion to vacate a final judgment entered against it. Following our review of the record below, we find no gross abuse of discretion, see Lewis v. Fifth Third Mortg. Co., 38 So. 3d 157, 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (noting that a trial court's denial of a motion to vacate a default final judgment is reviewed for a gross abuse of discretion); Karan v. Pernia, 343 So. 3d 689, 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022), and, to the extent the order on appeal was premised upon questions of law, see Emami v. Progressive Brands, Inc., 225 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (noting that whether judgment is void is a question of law reviewed de novo), our de novo review reveals no error by the trial court in those determinations. See also Sterling Mirror Co. v. Waldman Barnett, P.L., 325 So. 3d 858 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (table).

Affirmed.

EMAS, J.

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Out of date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