Gary Nader v. AIM Recovery Services, Inc.

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-0915 Lower Tribunal No. 22-21438-CA-01 ________________

Gary Nader, et al., Appellants,

vs.

AIM Recovery Services, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.

David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker, for appellants.

Stok Kon + Braverman, and Yosef Kudan and Robert A. Stok (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES, and GOODEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 399 So. 3d 1173, 1174

(Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“[The appellants] did not challenge the failure of the trial

court to make the required findings in their motion for rehearing. Because

[the appellants] failed to do so, this issue is not preserved for appellate

review, and we are compelled to affirm.”); Gervas v. Gazul Producciones SL

Unipersonal, 358 So. 3d 1257, 1259 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Under the new

summary judgment standard, a movant who bears the burden of persuasion

at trial has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue

of material fact and must produce evidence sufficient to result in a directed

verdict at trial. Once this initial burden is met, the party opposing the

summary judgment motion must then provide evidence showing that there

exists a genuine issue of material fact.”) (citation omitted); Chowdhury v.

BankUnited, N.A., 366 So. 3d 1130, 1133 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[T]o the

extent that [the defendants] relied on an affirmative defense to [the plaintiff’s]

claim, [the defendants] bore the burden of showing that the affirmative

defense was applicable and, therefore, precluded entry of summary

judgment.”).