Kely Bernardes v. Morrison Management Specialists, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0692
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 15, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0692 Lower Tribunal No. 23-20761-CA-01 ________________

Kely Bernardes, Appellant,

vs.

Morrison Management Specialists, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

Kely Bernardes, in proper person.

Fisher & Phillips LLP and Steven A. Siegel (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before EMAS, MILLER and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Zahav Refi LLC v. White Hawk Asset Mgmt., Inc., 395 So. 3d 556, 559 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024) (“[A]bsent a basis to vacate, modify, or

correct, or the presentation of an issue to the circuit court which had not been

submitted to arbitration, the circuit court must confirm the arbitration

award.”); Hinshaw v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 935 So. 2d 86, 86–87 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2006) (“Given the absence of a timely challenge to the arbitration award

or presentation of a viable issue to the trial court which had not been

submitted to arbitration, the trial court was correct in confirming the

arbitration award . . . .”); see also Kendall Imps., LLC v. Diaz, 215 So. 3d 95,

101 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The rule that one who signs a contract is presumed

to know its contents has been applied even to contracts of illiterate persons

on the ground that if such persons are unable to read, they are negligent if

they fail to have the contract read to them. If a person cannot read the

instrument, it is as much [her] duty to procure some reliable person to read

and explain it to [her], before [s]he signs it, as it would be to read it before

[s]he signed it if [s]he were able to do so.” (quoting Rivero v. Rivero, 963 So.

2d 934, 938 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007))); Raffay v. Longwood House Condo. Ass’n,

Inc., 389 So. 3d 589, 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Issues raised for the first time

in the reply brief are precluded from our consideration.”); State v. City of

Weston, 316 So. 3d 398, 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“[I]ssues not raised in the

initial brief are considered waived or abandoned.” (quoting Rosier v. State,

2 276 So. 3d 403, 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019))).