Smith v. Smith

Full title: Pierre Michel SMITH, Appellant, v. Lydie Ladouceur SMITH, Appellee.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Date published: Aug 25, 2021

347 So. 3d 71 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021)

Opinion

No. 3D20-1610

08-25-2021

Pierre Michel SMITH, Appellant, v. Lydie Ladouceur SMITH, Appellee.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski, for appellant. Kaplan Loebl, LLC, and Liliana Loebl and Amanda B. Haberman, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Wasson & Associates, Chartered, and Annabel C. Majewski, for appellant.

Kaplan Loebl, LLC, and Liliana Loebl and Amanda B. Haberman, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So. 2d 490, 497-98 (Fla. 1999) (holding: "When reviewing the order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion. If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion"); Umana v. Citizens Prop. Insur. Corp., 282 So. 3d 933, 934-35 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (holding: "The absence of a hearing transcript at which the trial court made this decision prevents any meaningful review of whether the trial court abused its discretion in this regard") (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979) ; Barsan v. Trinity Fin. Servs., LLC, 258 So. 3d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) ).