Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed August 2, 2023.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1554

Lower Tribunal No. 22-3771 CC

________________

Jean Claude Joseph II,

Appellant,

vs.

Caroline Henry,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Caryn 

Canner Schwartz, Senior Judge.

Huggins Peil, LLC, and Robert A. Kerr (Evans, GA), for appellant.

No Appearance, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ. 

LINDSEY, J.
2

Jean Claude Joseph II (the “Landlord”) appeals from a county court 

order dismissing his eviction action against Caroline Henry (the “Tenant”) for 

lack of standing. We affirm because the Landlord did not provide this Court 

with the relevant hearing transcript.

The Landlord filed an eviction action against the Tenant seeking to 

terminate her month-to-month tenancy. The Tenant raised several 

affirmative defenses, including lack of standing due to the property being 

sold to a new owner. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the action 

for lack of standing. The Landlord then moved for rehearing. The trial court 

entered an order denying rehearing and explained it had already considered 

and rejected the grounds raised in the Landlord’s motion at the “extensive 

hearing” on standing. The court further stated that the Landlord admitted he 

was no longer the owner of the property, and therefore, he had no authority 

to request substitution with the correct owner. Finally, the order clarified that 

dismissal was without prejudice to the new owner filing an eviction action.

The Landlord appealed but has not provided this Court with a transcript 

of the “extensive hearing” on standing. We are therefore compelled to affirm. 

See Fuhrman v. Sara G 01, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D2640 (Fla. 3d DCA 

Dec. 14, 2022) (“[T]he lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute results 
3

in a record that is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error and requires 

affirmance.”).

It is firmly established that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of a 

trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the 

appellant to demonstrate error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 

377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). “An appellant has the burden to present 

a record that will overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial 

court’s findings.” Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 556, 557 

(Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

As our Supreme Court explained in Applegate:

Without a record of the trial proceedings, the 

appellate court can not properly resolve the 

underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the 

trial court’s judgment is not supported by the 

evidence or by an alternative theory. Without 

knowing the factual context, neither can an appellate 

court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so 

misconceived the law as to require reversal.

377 So. 2d at 1152.

Here, the Landlord has failed to overcome the presumption of 

correctness because he did not provide this Court with a transcript of the 

hearing in which the lower court considered the issue of standing and ruled 

to dismiss the eviction action. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.