Harry Cruz v. Marta Perez

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedOctober 1, 2025
Docket3D2024-0885
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Harry Cruz v. Marta Perez, (Fla. Ct. App. 2025).

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

Austin v. Liquid Distributors, Inc.
928 So. 2d 521 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Morrill v. State
184 So. 3d 541 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Bryant v. Mezo
226 So. 3d 254 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Harry Cruz v. Marta Perez, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harry-cruz-v-marta-perez-fladistctapp-2025.