de Uejbe v. Wehbe

District Court of Appeal of Florida

de Uejbe v. Wehbe

875 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9944, 2004 WL 1515948

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 7, 2004

DocketNo. 3D02-2543

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 875 So. 2d 1284 (de Uejbe v. Wehbe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

de Uejbe v. Wehbe, 875 So. 2d 1284, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 9944, 2004 WL 1515948 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Maria Saja Jaramillo de Uejbe and Isidro A. Uejbe appeal a final judgment after non-jury trial in an ejectment case. We affirm.

The determination of the credibility of witnesses is for the trial court, not this court. See Marrone v. Miami Nat’l Bank, 507 So.2d 652, 653 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). Any issue regarding the sufficiency of the evidence is precluded by the absence of a [1285]*1285trial transcript. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.1979).

The argument that this civil action was barred by the res judicata effect of an earlier county court proceeding is not properly preserved for appellate review. That being so, we need not address appel-lees’ alternative argument that even if it had been properly preserved, it would have no merit. The same analysis applies to the argument pertaining to adverse possession.

The appellants argue that the trial court failed to rule on their counterclaim. However, it is clear from the wording of the judgment that the trial court ruled in favor of appellees on all claims. Given the findings in the court’s judgment, it necessarily follows that the counterclaim fails.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI