EDGAR MORALES
v.
LVNV FUNDING LLC
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.
Summary judgment was properly granted where the appellant's uncorroborated self-serving testimony could not overcome the documentary evidence supporting the appellee's position.
[1] A party opposing summary judgment must present evidence that is more than merely colorable or metaphysically doubtful; uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot defeat…
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“A party's uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment, particularly if the overwhelming documentary evidence supports the opposite scenario.”
Court's application of summary judgment standards in affirming the trial court's order
Edgar Morales appealed a summary judgment entered in favor of LVNV Funding LLC in a county court action in Miami-Dade County.…
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 Summary Judgment Standard Of Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed June 25, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-1856 Lower Tribunal No. 24-56201-CC-23 ________________
Edgar Morales, Appellant,
vs.
LVNV Funding LLC, Appellee.
An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Maria D. Ortiz, Judge.
Edgar Morales, in proper person.
No appearance, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, SCALES and LOBREE, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Empire Pro Restoration, Inc. v. Citizens Prop. Ins.
2 Corp., 322 So. 3d 96, 97 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021) (“The standard of review of an order granting summary judgment is de novo.” (quoting Bogatov v. City of Hallandale Beach, 192 So. 3d 600, 601 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016))); Bechor v. Simcenter, Inc., 394 So. 3d 666, 669 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“‘A party opposing summary judgment must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,’ and ‘if the evidence is merely colorable, or is not sufficiently probative, summary judgment may be granted.’” (quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 194 (Fla. 2020))); Rohart v. Int’l Keys Realty, LLC, 390 So. 3d 188, 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“[A] party’s uncorroborated self-serving testimony cannot prevent summary judgment, particularly if the overwhelming documentary evidence supports the opposite scenario.” (Quoting Rural Int’l Bank Ltd. v. Key Fin. Inv. Grp. LLC, No. 16-22280-Civ, 2017 WL 5891463, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2017))).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Valeriy Bogatov v. City OF Hallandale Beach & Kidz Zone Playsystems, Inc., 192 So. 3d 600 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
- Omer Bechor v. Simcenter, Inc., 394 So. 3d 666 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)
- Rohart v. Int'l Keys Realty, LLC, 390 So. 3d 188 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)