JOSE AGUSTIN RODRIGUEZ v. 5333 COLLINS ACQUISITIONS, LP

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 8, 2022
• Docket: 21-2246
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 8, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D21-2246 Lower Tribunal No. 21-18137 ________________

Jose Agustin Rodriguez, et al., Appellants,

vs.

5333 Collins Acquisitions, LP, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge.

Law Office of N. Fraser Schuh, and N. Fraser Schuh (Hallandale Beach), for appellants.

Shubin & Bass, P.A., and John K. Shubin, Juan J. Farach, Jamie L. Katz and Katherine R. Maxwell, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and LOGUE and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J. Affirmed. Coutts v. Sabadell United Bank, N.A., 199 So. 3d 1099,

1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“This argument [as to an evidentiary hearing] is

without merit, as [Appellant]’s coverage counsel affirmatively advised the

court that no evidentiary hearing was necessary and that the issue could be

decided as a matter of law.”); Morales L. Grp., P.A. v. Rodman, 305 So. 3d

759, 761 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (finding Appellants did not submit any evidence

“to the level of clear and convincing evidence that service was not validly

executed”); Sadlak v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 252 So. 3d 302, 304 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2018) (“The return was regular on its face, and [Appellant] did not

present clear and convincing evidence that she was not served.”).