Harry Cruz v. Marta Perez
This text of Harry Cruz v. Marta Perez (Harry Cruz v. Marta Perez) 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.
Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed October 1, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0885 Lower Tribunal No. 21-18176-CA-01 ________________
Harry Cruz, Appellant,
vs.
Marta Perez, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge.
Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, and Jeffrey J. Molinaro and Miguel J. Chamorro, for appellant.
Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, P.A., and Thomas A. Valdez (Tampa), for appellee.
Before EMAS, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.
PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Goga v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc., 383 So. 3d 490, 493
(Fla. 4th DCA 2024) (“Fraud on the court must be established by clear and
convincing evidence. Additionally, the standard of appellate review of a clear
and convincing finding is whether the finding is supported by competent,
substantial evidence.” (citations and quotations omitted)); Austin v. Liquid
Distribs., Inc., 928 So. 2d 521, 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“Where a plaintiff
makes misrepresentations and omissions about her accident and . . . . the
extensive nature of the plaintiff’s past medical history belies her claim that
she had forgotten or was confused, she thereby forfeits her right to proceed
with her personal injury action.”); Bryant v. Mezo, 226 So. 3d 254, 256 (Fla.
4th DCA 2017) (“Not only did the plaintiff fail to disclose any prior neck or
back injury, she continued to deny these injuries when confronted by records
and medical bills related to those injuries. Her disclosed arm injury was
contained in the same medical records as her prior neck injury. The trial court
did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint.”); Morrill v.
State, 184 So. 3d 541, 545 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (“[U]nder the business
records exception, the proponent of the evidence must . . . . [lay a foundation]
in one of three formats: (1) testimony of a records custodian, (2) stipulation
by the parties, or (3) a certification or declaration that complies with sections
90.803(6)(c) and 90.902(11).”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Harry Cruz v. Marta Perez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-cruz-v-marta-perez-fladistctapp-2025.