VESTALIA AYLSWORTH,
v.
MUTINY ON THE BAY CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Fla. 3d DCA | 2019-06-26
No. 18-2052
Eig, J., Emas, C.J., Fernandez, J., Miller, J.
275 So. 3d 781 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2019)

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.


Holding

Business records may be authenticated by a records custodian or other qualified witness who need not have prepared the records but must be sufficiently acquainted with the business's practices to testify that the successor business relies on those records and that circumstances indicate their trustworthiness.


Headnotes

[1] A business record may be authenticated by a records custodian or other qualified witness who need not be the person who prepared the record, provided the witness is suffi…

[2] A document that is properly addressed, stamped, and mailed is presumed to have been received by the addressee, and this presumption stands absent credible evidence suffic…

Previewing 2 of 2 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

Key Quotes

“The foundation for admission of a business record may be established by a records custodian or other qualified witness, and that witness authenticating the records need not be the person who actually prepared the business records. The witness just needs to be well enough acquainted with the activity to testify that the successor business relies on those records, and that the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy.”

Court's statement of the rule for authenticating business records

Facts & Procedural History

Vestalia Aylsworth appealed a circuit court judgment in a case involving Mutiny on the Bay Condominium Association, Inc. The appeal concerned evidenti…

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.


Per_curiam
Per Curiam

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed June 26, 2019. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D18-2052 Lower Tribunal No. 12-27538 ________________ Vestalia Aylsworth, Appellant, vs. Mutiny on the Bay Condominium Association, Inc., Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Eig, Judge. Aylsworth & Aylsworth, and Vestalia Aylsworth, for appellant. Glausier Knight, PLLC, and Charles Evans Glausier, and Melissa J. Knight, and Stan Rowe (Tampa), for appellee. Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Footnotes
2 Affirmed. See Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. v. de Brito, 235 So. 3d 972, 975 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“The foundation for admission of a business record may be established by a records custodian or other qualified witness, and that witness authenticating the records need not be the person who actually prepared the business records. The witness just needs to be well enough acquainted with the activity to testify that the successor business relies on those records, and that the circumstances indicate the records are trustworthy.”) (internal citations omitted) (citing Bank of N.Y. v. Calloway, 157 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Nationstar Mortg., LLC v. Berdecia, 169 So. 3d 209, 216 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Cayea v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 138 So. 3d 1214, 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)); Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Camillo, 80 So. 3d 394, 402 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (“Proof of mailing of a document to the correct address creates a presumption that the item mailed was, in fact, received.”) (citation omitted); Berwick v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 436 So. 2d 239, 240 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (“It is presumed that mail properly addressed, stamped and mailed was received by the addressee.”) (citing Brown v. Giffen Indus., Inc., 281 So. 2d 897 (Fla. 1973); Milros-Sans Souci, Inc. v. Dade Cty., 296 So. 2d 545 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Eckert, 472 So. 2d 807, 809 (Fla 4th DCA 1985) (holding that where “no credible evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the nonexistence of the presumed fact was introduced, the trier of fact was required to assume the existence thereof”) (citing § 90.302, Fla. Stat.).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw