BASSEM ESSAM EL MALLAKH
v.
BELGIUM INVESTMENTS 960 BAY DR, ETC.
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.
Bassem Essam El Mallakh appealed an order denying his motion to vacate a default final judgment entered in favor of Belgium Investments 960 Bay Drive. The trial court conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing and denied the motion in a detailed fourteen-page opinion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, applying established principles regarding deference to trial court factual findings and credibility determinations.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion to vacate the default judgment. The appellate court applied the principles established in Koster v. Sullivan and other precedent, declining to substitute its judgment for the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations.
[1] Trial court factual findings and credibility determinations regarding a motion to vacate a default judgment are reviewed on appeal under a deferential standard and will n…
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 intelligenceA default final judgment was entered against appellant El Mallakh in favor of appellee Belgium Investments 960 Bay Drive. El Mallakh filed a verified …
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 Appellate Deference To Trial Court Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed February 16, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-1295 Lower Tribunal No. 18-28145 ________________
Bassem Essam El Mallakh,
Appellant,
vs.
Belgium Investments 960 Bay Dr, Appellee.
An appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Frank Law Firm, P.A., and Cody L. Frank (Fort Lauderdale); South Florida Law, PLLC, and Frank DelloRusso (Hallandale Beach), for appellant. Bernhard Law Firm, PLLC, and Andrew J. Bernhard, for appellee. Before EMAS, LOGUE, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Bassem Essam El Mallakh, challenges an order denying his verified motion to vacate a default final judgment rendered in favor of appellee, Belgium Investments 960 Bay Drive. The trial court conducted an extensive evidentiary hearing, resolved all disputed factual issues, and articulated legal conclusions in a carefully reasoned, fourteen-page opinion.
Adhering to the presumptions codified in the Supreme Court’s seminal decision, Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015), the principles advanced in Lazcar International, Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), and the adage that we must decline to “substitute [our] judgment for that of the trial court on questions of fact, likewise of the credibility of the witnesses as well as the weight to be given to the evidence by the trial court,”
Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 1955), as this “is not the function of the appellate court,” Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976), we affirm the order under review in all respects.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Goldfarb v. Robertson, 82 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 1955)
- Koster v. Sullivan, 160 So. 3d 385 (Fla. 2015)
- Lazcar Int'l, Inc. v. Caraballo, 957 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)