Court Opinion

ID: 9371095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 16:03:57.566184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:25.333524
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                       Opinion filed February 15, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                              No. 3D22-138
                        Lower Tribunal No. 21-7112
                           ________________

                             Yavor Efremov,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                   Motorsport Network, LLC, etc.,
                                  Appellee.

    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William
Thomas, Judge.

      Clarke Silverglate, P.A., and Craig Salner and Karen H. Curtis, for
appellant.

     AXS Law Group, PLLC, and Jeffrey W. Gutchess, for appellee.

Before LOGUE, SCALES, and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.

     We find no error in the trial court’s determination that the contract terms

at issue warranted the granting of the Appellee’s motion for summary
judgment. Shivdasani v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 306 So. 3d 1156,

1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020) (“Courts cannot disregard … agreed-upon,

contractual provisions between parties. To do so would be to strike the …

obligations from the contract by way of judicial fiat and the bargained-for

contractual terms would be rendered surplusage.”).

      In addition, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of

Appellant’s motion to amend its complaint. In the last weeks before the

summary judgment hearing, Appellant sought to add counts maintaining that

the contract provisions he had relied upon in the litigation up to that point in

time did not reflect the parties’ intent and must be reformed on account of

mutual or unilateral mistake. The trial court properly found that the

amendment would be both untimely and futile. Vella v. Salaues, 290 So. 3d

946, 949 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019). Accordingly, we affirm the well-reasoned

judgment of the trial court.

                                       2