DEMIDA MIAMI GARDENS, LLC, AND DAVID PAUL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLANTS,
v.
MASTER EXCAVATORS, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the enforcement of a personal guarantee against David Paul but reversed the judgment as to the LLC co-appellant and remanded for correction of the judgment amount.
A personal guarantee is enforceable where the trial court finds sufficient consideration and satisfaction of conditions precedent, and judgment must be entered only against the guarantor, not co-appellants.
[1] A personal guarantee is enforceable where the trial court finds competent and substantial evidence of consideration and satisfaction of conditions precedent, and appellat…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaster Excavators obtained a personal guarantee from David Paul. Paul and his LLC, Demida Miami Gardens, were sued to enforce the guarantee, and a jud…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Personal Guaranty cases and more on FLexlaw
Demida Miami Gardens, LLC, and David Paul, individually (collectively, “appellants”), appeal a final judgment in the amount of $933,617.43 entered against appellants, which resulted from an action by appellee, Master Excavators, Inc., to enforce a personal guarantee that was provided to Master by Paul. On appeal, appellants assert that the guarantee is unenforceable because there was no con*1251sideration for the guarantee and Master failed to satisfy conditions precedent to its enforcement. We reject both arguments. These factual issues were hotly disputed at trial. While the record contains testimony and evidence that supports appellants’ arguments, it also contains other competent and substantial testimony and evidence that directly contradicts them. “On this record, we could reverse only by re-weighing the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses — a function not ascribed to this court.” G & G Fashion Design, Inc. v. Garcia, 870 So.2d 870, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Appellants also assert that, although the guarantee was personal to Paul alone, the final judgment was entered erroneously against both appellants, and in an amount that exceeded the amount requested by Master at trial. On Master’s proper confession of error, we remand to the trial court for entry of a final judgment against Paul only, and for the trial court to reduce the amount of the final judgment from $933,617.43 to $908,292.39. In all other respects, the final judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed, in part, reversed, in part, and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
GR Opco, LLC v. Murillo (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)…the prerogative of an appellate court, upon a de novo consideration of the record, to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” (quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976))); Demida Miami Gardens, LLC v. Master Excavators, Inc., 107 So. 3d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“On this record, we could reverse only by re-weighing the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses—a function not ascribed to this court.” (quoting G & G Fashion Design, Inc. v. Garcia, 870 So. 2d 870, 873 (Fla. 3d DCA…
Authorities Cited
- G & G Fashion Design, Inc. v. Garcia, 870 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)