EL MALLAKH v. BELGIUM INVESTMENTS 960 BAY DR (2022)

Appellant, Bassem Essam El Mallakh, challenges an order denying his verified motion to vacate a default final judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Belgium Investments 960 Bay Drive. The trial court conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing, resolved all disputed factual issues, and articulated legal conclusions in a carefully reasoned, fourteen-page opinion. Adhering to the presumptions codified in the Supreme Court's seminal decision, Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015), the principles advanced in Lazcar International, Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), and the adage that we must decline to “substitute [our] judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court,” Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 1955), as this “is not the function of the appellate court,” Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976), we affirm the order under review in all respects.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.