Court Opinion

ID: 9391847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-03 15:03:52.604746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:33.370327
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                                State of Florida

                           Opinion filed May 3, 2023.
        Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                             ________________

                              No. 3D22-0320
                        Lower Tribunal No. 15-14374
                           ________________

                   ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc., etc.,
                                   Appellant,

                                      vs.

              Webjet Linhas Aereas, S.A., etc., et al.,
                                  Appellees.

    An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie R.
Manno Schurr, Judge.

      Podhurst Orseck, P.A., and Stephen F. Rosenthal, and Christina H.
Martinez; Griffin & Serrano, and Juan Serrano (Ft. Lauderdale), for appellant.

     King & Spalding LLP and Drew T. Bell (Austin, TX), Val Leppert, and
W. Randall Bassett, for appellees.

Before EMAS, SCALES, and LINDSEY, JJ.

      PER CURIAM.
      Appellant ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. appeals from a final order issued

after a non-jury trial in favor of Webjet Linhas Aereas S.A. and Gol Linhas

Aereas Inteligentes S.A. After three days of trial, including arguments from

counsel and testimony from four witnesses, the trial court requested and

received post-trial briefing from both sides. Thereafter, the trial court entered

an order and final judgment totaling 44 pages, ruling in favor of Appellees on

five independent grounds.

      The trial court’s order comes to us clothed with the presumption of

correctness. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court

has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to

demonstrate error.”); Horatio Enterprises, Inc. v. Rabin, 614 So. 2d 555, 556

(Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (“The rulings of a trial court arrive in appellate courts with

the presumption of correctness and appellate courts must interpret the

evidence in a manner most favorable to sustain the trial court's rulings.”);

Hernandez v. Vidal, 354 So. 3d 632, 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“The findings

of a trial court come to an appellate court clothed with a presumption of

correctness.”).

                                       2
     To reverse this order, Appellant’s counsel commendably conceded at

oral argument that we would need to find reversible error on each of the five

independent grounds. We do not. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

                                     3