Court Opinion

ID: 9375971
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 16:02:46.253251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:03.321705
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed March 1, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-0845
                       Lower Tribunal No. 19-20799
                          ________________

                          Michael Lally, et al.,
                                 Appellants,

                                     vs.

                    AIM Recovery Services, Inc.,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Charles
Johnson, Judge.

      Rasco Klock Perez & Nieto, P.L., and Joseph P. Klock, Jr., and Gabriel
E. Nieto, for appellants.

      Stok Kon + Braverman, and Robert A. Stok, Joshua R. Kon and David
I. Rosenblatt (Fort Lauderdale), for appellee.

Before LOGUE, MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.510, 317 So.

3d 72, 77–78 (Fla. 2021) (“In cases where a summary judgment motion was

denied under the pre-amendment rule, the court should give the parties a

reasonable opportunity to file a renewed summary judgment motion under

the new rule.”); see also Woodruff v. TRG-Harbour House, Ltd., 967 So. 2d

248, 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (explaining that “[d]uress involves a step

beyond mere illegality and implies that a person has been unlawfully

constrained or compelled by another to perform an act under circumstances

which prevent the exercise of free will”) (internal quotation and citation

omitted); Estate of Etting v. Regents Park at Aventura, Inc., 891 So. 2d 558,

558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (“It has long been held in Florida that one is bound

by his contract.       Unless one can show facts and circumstances to

demonstrate that he was prevented from reading the contract, or that he was

induced by statements of the other party to refrain from reading the contract

it is binding.”) (citation omitted).

                                       2