STACEY E. FRERICHS, ET AL.
v.
ARTHUR MATTSON, ET AL.
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.
The trial court's factual findings are reviewed under a competent substantial evidence standard, and knowledge as a state of mind may be inferred from the circumstances of the case.
[1] Factual findings of a trial court are reviewed under a competent substantial evidence standard on appeal.
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“Knowledge is an elusive quality. Like intent, since it is a state of mind, it is often not subject to direct proof and can only be inferred from the circumstances of the case by the trier of fact.”
Citation to Heineman v. State regarding the nature of knowledge as a state of mind in evidentiary analysis
This case involved an appeal from a circuit court decision in Monroe County. The specific factual details underlying the dispute are not elaborated in…
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 Standard For Factual Findings cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed September 24, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D24-1848 Lower Tribunal No. 22-CA-177-M ________________ Stacey E. Frerichs, et al., Appellants, vs. Arthur Mattson, et al., Appellees. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Older, Lundy, Koch & Martino, and Jon Johnson (Tampa), for appellants. Harvey J. Sepler, P.A., and Harvey J. Sepler (Hollywood); Campbell & Malafy, and Richard A. Malafy (Marathon), for appellees. Before LINDSEY, BOKOR and GOODEN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
2
Affirmed. See Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortg. Co. v. Wright, 253 So. 3d 72, 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (“The trial court’s factual findings are reviewed under a competent, substantial evidence standard.”); Heineman v. State, 327 So. 2d 898, 898–99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976) (“Knowledge is an elusive quality. Like intent, since it is a state of mind, it is often not subject to direct proof and can only be inferred from the circumstances of the case by the trier of fact.”).