Wancito Francius v. Carlos Auto Rental Services, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 17, 2024
• Docket: 2023-2107
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 17, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D23-2107 Lower Tribunal No. 22-8453 CC ________________

Wancito Francius, Appellant,

vs.

Carlos Auto Rental Services, Inc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Chiaka Ihekwaba, Judge.

Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence R. Metsch, for appellant.

McDonald Senat Law, PLLC, and Louis C. Senat (North Lauderdale), for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM. After a non-jury trial was held, the trial court entered judgment in favor

of the Appellees (Plaintiffs below) in the amount of $25,000.00, finding that,

based on the greater weight of the evidence, the payment was a loan and

that the Appellants (Defendants below) failed to repay the loan as agreed

between the parties. There is no transcript of the non-jury trial. As such, we

are constrained to affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,

377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of

a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the

appellant to demonstrate error.”); Horatio Enters., Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d

555, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“The rulings of a trial court arrive in appellate

courts with the presumption of correctness and appellate courts must

interpret the evidence in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's

rulings.”); Hernandez v. Vidal, 354 So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“The

findings of a trial court come to an appellate court clothed with a presumption

of correctness.”).

Affirmed.