Court Opinion

ID: 9387935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-19 15:03:18.549761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:16.701285
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 19, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D22-1247
                        Lower Tribunal No. 17-2158
                           ________________

                          Richard Namon, Jr.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                            Barbara Namon,
                                  Appellee.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna
Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

     Richard Namon, in proper person.

     Muir Law, PLLC, and William Douglas Muir, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr., 81 So. 3d

556, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“Where there is no record of the testimony of

witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has

not been prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.200(a)(3) or (b)(3), a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its

face must be affirmed.”); Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. Americas,

248 So. 3d 1205, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“[P]resenting an adequate

record—one that demonstrates not only what evidence was presented below

but also which arguments were preserved—remains the appellant’s burden

in an appeal of a summary judgment.”); Applegate v. Barnett Bank of

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“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.”); Kohn v. City of

Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“We conclude that

it is a mistake to hold a pro se litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably

competent attorney.”).

                                       2