Case ID: so3d_132/html/1234-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LAURAMAR I LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, et al., Appellants, v. MEL FISHER MARITIME HERITAGE SOCIETY, INC., Appellee.
    No. 3D12-3038.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    Feb. 26, 2014.
    Wayne Kruer (Key West), for appellants.
    The Barthet Firm, and Alexander Edward Barthet, Patrick Charles Barthet, and Paul D. Breitner, for appellee.
    Before ROTHENBERG, EMAS, and LOGUE, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See § 695.01(1), Fla. Stat. (2012); Mayfield v. First City Bank of Fla., 95 So.Sd 398, 401 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), review denied, 116 So.3d 1261 (Fla.2013) (“Section 695.01 is a ‘notice’ recording statute, the primary purpose of which is to protect subsequent purchasers (including mortgagees and creditors) against claims arising from prior unrecorded instruments.”); see also Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 117 So.3d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (“When a cause is tried without a jury, the trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.”) (citations omitted).