NORMAN "CESS" SILVERA
v.
RICHARD EFFS
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.
This is a brief appellate affirmance involving questions about trial court discretion regarding deposition admissibility and contract interpretation under Florida law. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's judgment.
The trial court's decision was affirmed. Trial courts have broad discretion regarding the source, nature, and sufficiency of facts they may consider for deposition admissions, and custom or usage cannot operate to contradict express contractual provisions.
[1] Trial courts possess broad judicial discretion in determining the source, nature, and sufficiency of facts upon which to base admission of depositions under Florida Rule…
[2] Custom or usage may be employed to explain and qualify otherwise ambiguous contract terms but cannot operate to contravene express contract language or instructions.
Previewing 2 of 2 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 court has 'broad judicial discretion as to the source, nature, and sufficiency of the facts which [it] may consider.' Proof which raises a reasonable presumption is sufficient to provide the basis for admission of a deposition under rule 1.330.”
Establishes the standard of review for trial court discretion in admitting depositions
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe case involves a dispute between Norman 'Cess' Silvera and Richard Effs. The specific factual details are not elaborated in this per curiam opinion…
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 Contract Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
Opinion filed October 23, 2024. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________ No. 3D23-1657 Lower Tribunal No. 12-8650 ________________ Norman "Cess" Silvera,
Appellant,
vs.
Richard Effs,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Beatrice Butchko Sanchez, Judge. Jay M. Levy, P.A. and Jay M. Levy, for appellant. Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkas, P.L., and Douglas C. Broeker, for appellee. Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and GOODEN, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Hutchings v. Liles, 86 So. 3d 1279, 1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“The trial court has ‘broad judicial discretion as to the source, nature, and sufficiency of the facts which [it] may consider.’ Proof which raises a reasonable presumption is sufficient to provide the basis for admission of a deposition under rule 1.330.”) (quoting Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So. 2d 515, 517 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)); Iden v. Kasden, 609 So. 2d 54, 56 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“[W]hile custom or usage may be employed in explanation and qualification of terms of a contract that would otherwise be ambiguous, it cannot operate to contravene express instructions or to contradict an express contract to the contrary.”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Iden v. Kasden, 609 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Colonnades, Inc. v. Vance Baldwin, Inc., 318 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Hutchings v. Liles, 86 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012)