CESAR LEONEL DIAS v. ETTORE PIAQUADIO ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        Third District Court of Appeal
    State of Florida
    Opinion filed February 10, 2021.
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    ________________
    No. 3D19-2168
    Lower Tribunal No. 18-40832
    ________________
    Cesar Leonel Dias,
    Appellant,
    vs.
    Ettore Piaquadio,
    Appellee.
    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz,
    Judge.
    Law Offices of John E. Bergendahl, and John E. Bergendahl, for
    appellant.
    The Carlin Law Firm, PLLC, and Justin C. Carlin (Fort Lauderdale), for
    appellee.
    Before EMAS, C.J., and LOGUE and MILLER, JJ.
    PER CURIAM.
    Affirmed. See Robles-Martinez v. Diaz, Reus & Targ, LLP, 
    88 So. 3d 177
    , 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (observing: “While a plaintiff bears the ultimate
    burden of proving valid service of process, M.J.W. v. Dep't. of Children &
    Families, 
    825 So. 2d 1038
    , 1041 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), a ‘return of service
    that is regular on its face is presumed to be valid absent clear and convincing
    evidence presented to the contrary’“) (quoting Telf Corp. v. Gomez, 
    671 So. 2d 818
    , 818 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)); Gonzalez v. Totalbank, 
    472 So. 2d 861
    ,
    864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (holding: “When the return of service is regular on
    its face, the party challenging the service has the burden of overcoming the
    presumption of its validity by presenting clear and convincing evidence.”)
    See also Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 
    377 So. 2d 1150
    , 1152
    (Fla. 1979) (holding: “In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court
    has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to
    demonstrate error. . . . When there are issues of fact the appellant
    necessarily asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence.
    Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly
    resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's
    judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”)
    2