Philene Harte-Weiner-Toledo v. Daniel F. Toledo, Jr., etc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 29, 2024
• Docket: 2023-0810
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed May 29, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-0810 Lower Tribunal No. 20-396 ________________

Philene Harte-Weiner-Toledo, Appellant,

vs.

Daniel F. Toledo, Jr., etc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Victoria del Pino, Judge.

Mandel Law Group, P.A., and Roberta G. Mandel, for appellant.

Law Offices of Geoffrey B. Marks, and Geoffrey B. Marks, for appellee.

Before EMAS, GORDO and BOKOR JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Larkins v. Mendez, 363 So. 3d 140, 146 n.5 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2023) (“Clear and convincing evidence is defined as evidence ‘that is

precise, explicit, lacking in confusion, and of such weight that it produces a

firm belief or conviction, without hesitation, about the matter in issue.’”

(citation omitted)); see also Soto v. Carrollwood Vill. Phase III Homeowners

Ass'n, Inc., 326 So. 3d 1181, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (“Failing to state a

cause of action is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis to support a finding

that a claim was so lacking in merit as to justify an award of fees pursuant to

section 57.105.” (quotation omitted)); see also MC Liberty Express, Inc. v.

All Points Servs., Inc., 252 So. 3d 397, 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) (“[A]n award

of fees under section 57.105 requires more than the moving party

succeeding in obtaining a dismissal of the action or the entry of a summary

judgment in its favor . . . .”).