GARY NADER, ET AL.
v.
AIM RECOVERY SERVICES, INC.
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.
Appellants' failure to challenge the trial court's omission of required findings in their motion for rehearing resulted in waiver of the issue for appellate review.
[1] A party's failure to challenge a trial court's omission of required findings in a motion for rehearing results in waiver of that issue for appellate review.
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 intelligence“[The appellants] did not challenge the failure of the trial court to make the required findings in their motion for rehearing. Because [the appellants] failed to do so, this issue is not preserved for appellate review, and we are compelled to affirm.”
Court's explanation for affirmance, citing Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon
Gary Nader and others appealed a circuit court decision in Miami-Dade County. The trial court issued a judgment that appellants challenged on appeal.…
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 Preservation Of Issues For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0915 Lower Tribunal No. 22-21438-CA-01 ________________
Gary Nader, et al., Appellants,
vs.
AIM Recovery Services, Inc., Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.
David J. Winker, P.A., and David J. Winker, for appellants.
Stok Kon + Braverman, and Yosef Kudan and Robert A. Stok (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.
Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES, and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 399 So. 3d 1173, 1174 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“[The appellants] did not challenge the failure of the trial court to make the required findings in their motion for rehearing. Because [the appellants] failed to do so, this issue is not preserved for appellate review, and we are compelled to affirm.”); Gervas v. Gazul Producciones SL Unipersonal, 358 So. 3d 1257, 1259 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“Under the new summary judgment standard, a movant who bears the burden of persuasion at trial has the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and must produce evidence sufficient to result in a directed verdict at trial. Once this initial burden is met, the party opposing the summary judgment motion must then provide evidence showing that there exists a genuine issue of material fact.”) (citation omitted); Chowdhury v. BankUnited, N.A., 366 So. 3d 1130, 1133 n.2 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“[T]o the extent that [the defendants] relied on an affirmative defense to [the plaintiff’s] claim, [the defendants] bore the burden of showing that the affirmative defense was applicable and, therefore, precluded entry of summary judgment.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ross v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 366 So. 3d 1130 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Hardison v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon, 399 So. 3d 1173 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)