Court Opinion

ID: 9780959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 14:08:26.03343+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:44.451003
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 30, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                            No. 3D22-1581
                        Lower Tribunal No. 16-381
                          ________________

                          Armando Montalvo,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                     Frank V. Rovirosa, III, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Yvonne
Colodny, Judge.

     Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, and Jeffrey J. Molinaro, for appellant.

      Aran Correa & Guarch, P.A., and Fernando S. Aran; Bell Rosquete
Reyes Esteban, PLLC, and Alexander Esteban; Shutts & Bowen LLP, and
Julissa Rodriguez, for appellees.

Before LOGUE, C.J., and HENDON and GORDO, JJ.

     GORDO, J.
      Armando Montalvo appeals an order of partial final judgment in favor

of Frank V. Rovirosa, III, Ricardo Rovirosa (“the Sons”) and an order denying

his motion for rehearing. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.110(k). This

case arises from an adversarial proceeding related to the probate estate of

Frank L. Rovirosa (“the Decedent”). Specifically at issue is a dispute over

the Decedent’s alleged ownership interest in Hemisphere International

Holding Terminal LLC, which Montalvo seeks to have declared an estate

asset based on an alleged oral agreement made in 2004. The Sons moved

for partial summary judgment asserting Montalvo’s claims were barred by

the applicable four-year statute of limitations. Following a hearing, the trial

court granted the Sons’ motion.

      Montalvo contends the trial court erred in granting the motion because

the Sons’ statute of limitations defense was improperly pled and genuine

disputes of material fact remain. Upon review of the record, we find the trial

court properly granted the Sons’ motion. See S. Florida Coastal Elec., Inc.

v. Treasures on Bay II Condo Ass’n, 89 So. 3d 264, 267 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)

(“A properly pled affirmative defense includes ultimate facts sufficient to

provide notice of the proof the defendant intends to rely upon to defeat the

plaintiff’s claim.”); Ibarra v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 350 So. 3d 465, 467

(Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Genuine disputes are those in which ‘the evidence is

                                      2
such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. If

the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary

judgment may be granted.’” (quoting In re Amends. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc.

1.510, 309 So. 3d 192, 194 (Fla. 2020))); Bank of Am., N.A. v. Bank of New

York Mellon, 338 So. 3d 338, 341 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“A trial court does not

abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsideration or rehearing

which raises an issue that could have, but wasn’t, raised in the initial motion

or at the initial hearing.”). Finding no error in the trial court’s order, we affirm.

      Affirmed.

                                         3