ANTHONY ACOSTA AND ESPERANZA ACOSTA, APPELLANTS,
v.
CREATIVE GROUP INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Findings Of Fact Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. “Findings of fact by a trial judge in a non-jury proceeding will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.” Lee v. Lee, 563 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). “Competent, substantial evidence is ‘such evidence as will establish a substantial basis of fact from which the fact at issue can reasonably be inferred [or] ... such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ” Duval Util. Co. v. Florida Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 380 So. 2d 1028, 1031 (Fla.1980). Here, the trial court found that the appellant, Anthony Acosta, had the ability to pay $500 per month after careful review of his financial affidavit.1
. Acosta’s argument that his affidavit is not competent is unconvincing, as the affidavit was submitted by his counsel and prepared by his accountant.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Canavan v. State, 842 So. 2d 306 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)…anavan was sentenced to 25 years incarceration for count one, with a notation that he was being sentenced as a habitual offender, followed by 15 years probation, with no express notation that the latter was as a habitual offender. In West v. State, 790 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), we held that a defendant who was adjudicated a habitual offender and sentenced to 10 years incarceration followed by probation received an illegal sentence because the offenses arose from a single criminal episode. See also Whit…
-
Carnival Corp. v. Digno Rivera Mendoza, 949 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…e, 563 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)(“Findings of fact by a trial judge in a non-jury proceeding will not be set aside on review unless totally unsupported by competent and substantial evidence.”)); Acosta v. Creative [*1155] Group Investments, 790 So. 2d 518, 518 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)(same). Carnival’s unreasonable denial of maintenance and cure rendered it liable to Mendoza for compensatory damages. See Norwegian Cruise Lines, Ltd. v. Zareno, 712 So. 2d 791, 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(if shipowner unreasonabl…
Authorities Cited
- Duval Util. Co. v. The Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 380 So. 2d 1028 (Fla. 1980)
- LEE v. LEE, 563 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)