KARINE SHAVARSHYAN
v.
HEAVENLY SPIRITS, 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.
Appellant Karine Shavarshyan appeals a final judgment rendered in favor of appellees Heavenly Spirits, Inc., Istvan Pencz, and Eugeniu Popa following a bench trial in Miami-Dade County. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the trial court's factual findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence and rejecting appellant's numerous contentions of error.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all respects, holding that the trial court's factual findings were clothed with a presumption of correctness and were supported by competent, substantial evidence, and that the remaining contentions of error, including mislabeling of the judgment, denial of jury trial, and order of proceedings, were without merit.
[1] A default judgment against one defendant in a multi-defendant action does not operate as an admission of the allegations against a co-defendant who contests the action.
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 trial judge's findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous”
Standard of review for bench trial findings of fact
The case involves a dispute between Karine Shavarshyan and Heavenly Spirits, Inc., along with individual defendants Istvan Pencz and Eugeniu Popa. The…
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 Competent Substantial Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed March 2, 2022. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D21-0672 Lower Tribunal No. 16-29297 ________________
Karine Shavarshyan,
Appellant,
vs.
Heavenly Spirits, Inc., et al., Appellees.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mark Blumstein, Judge. Downs Law Group, P.A., and Jeremy D. Friedman, for appellant. The Law Offices of Eddy O. Marban, and Edilberto O. Marban, for appellees Istvan Pencz and Eugeniu Popa. Before SCALES, LINDSEY, and MILLER, JJ. PER CURIAM.
In this appeal, appellant challenges a final judgment rendered in favor of appellees following a bench trial.1 Although appellant raises numerous contentions of error, resolution of most is controlled by the basic principle that “[i]n an appeal from a bench trial, ‘the trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.’” Lougas v. Sophia Enters., Inc., 117 So. 3d 839, 841 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013) (quoting Taylor v. Richards, 971 So. 2d 127, 129 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)). Here, the factual findings by the trial court are supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Merrill Stevens Dry Dock Co. v. G & J Invs. Corp., 506 So. 2d 30, 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (quoting Duncanson v. Serv. First, Inc., 157 So. 2d 696, 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)) (“We are duty bound not to disturb the findings of fact of a trial judge in a case heard without a jury where such findings are based upon conflicting competent evidence.”).
Declining to impute error in the remaining issues, including the mislabeling of the judgment, the denial of jury trial, and the order of the proceedings, and noting that a default against one defendant cannot serve as an admission of the allegations against a contesting co-defendant, we affirm in all respects.
See Bank of N.Y. Mellon for Certificateholders of CWABS, Inc. v. Swain, 217 1 Appellant also appeals the denial of her motion for new trial.
So. 3d 226, 227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (quoting Boyd v. Goff, 828 So. 2d 468, 469 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)) (“The focus is on ‘what a court order does’ and not ‘how the order is labeled.’”); 381651 Alberta, Ltd. v. 279298 Alberta, Ltd., 675 So. 2d 1385, 1387 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (holding right to jury trial applies only to legal and not equitable relief sought under Florida’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act); Dade County v. Lambert, 334 So. 2d 844, 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (finding default of one defendant cannot operate as admission of allegations against contesting co-defendant).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Duncanson v. Serv. First, Inc., 157 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Dade Cnty. v. Lambert, 334 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- Taylor v. Richards, 971 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Merrill Stevens DRY Dock Co. v. G & J Invs. Corp., Inc., 506 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- 381651 Alberta, Ltd. v. 279298 Alberta, Ltd., 675 So. 2d 1385 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Boyd v. Goff, 828 So. 2d 468 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Lougas v. Sophia Enters., Inc., 117 So. 3d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)