Court Opinion

ID: 7720058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 19:26:46.124254+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:27:10.825124
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM.
Because the appellant has failed to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion by granting the appellee’s motion to set aside a portion of the second amended final judgment, we affirm. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Capital, Inc. v. Hallmark Indus., Inc., 627 So.2d 12 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), review denied, 637 So.2d 235 (Fla.1994); Marshall Davis, Inc. v. Incapco, Inc., 558 So.2d 206 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Graham v. Eisele, 245 So.2d 682 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971).
Affirmed.