Dalen Hutchison v. Edmundo Blanco

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: November 5, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-2318
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed November 5, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-2318 Lower Tribunal No. 24-135807-SP-05 ________________

Dalen Hutchison, Appellant,

vs.

Edmundo Blanco, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Jacqueline Woodward, Judge.

Dalen Hutchison, in proper person.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before EMAS, LINDSEY and GOODEN, JJ.

EMAS, J. Dalen Hutchison, the plaintiff below, appeals a final judgment in favor

of the defendant below, Edmundo Blanco, following a nonjury trial on this

action in small claims court. In the final judgment, the trial court found “no

admissible evidence to support any of Plaintiff’s claims.” The judgment also

stated: “Plaintiff purchased an 18 year old car with 130,000 miles on the

odometer from a private individual based on an online advertisement,

Plaintiff had an opportunity to inspect the vehicle, came back 2 days later

and purchased the vehicle, met up with the seller two weeks later to update

the bill of sale (as it was signed without the odometer amount filled out). The

trial court later denied Hutchison’s motion for new trial, and this appeal

followed.

“In reviewing a final judgment rendered from a non-jury trial, the trial

court’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption of correctness. We

apply a clear error standard to the findings of fact, and a finding will not be

disturbed unless it is totally unsupported by competent and substantial

evidence, it is clearly against the weight of the evidence, or it was induced

by an erroneous view of the law. We review the trial court’s conclusions of

law and application of law to the facts de novo.” La Ley Sports Complex at

City of Homestead, LLC v. City of Homestead, 255 So. 3d 468, 469 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2018) (citations omitted); see also Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.230 (providing:

2 “Review of orders and judgments of the courts governed by these rules shall

be prosecuted in accordance with the Florida Rules of Appellate

Procedure.”).

On appeal, Hutchison asserts the trial court erred in finding no

admissible evidence to support his claims because the evidence he offered

at trial was admissible under section 90.803, Florida Statutes, and in

applying the common law concept of caveat emptor to the underlying

transaction.

Because the action below proceeded in small claims court, the Florida

Small Claims Rules apply. Under Florida Small Claims Rule 7.140(f), “[t]he

rules of evidence applicable to trial of civil actions apply but are to be liberally

construed.” See also First Class Parking Sys. LLC v. Bykov, 401 So. 3d 403

(Fla. 3d DCA 2024) (“‘the Florida Small Claims Rules . . . eschew the

formality ordinarily associated with civil litigation, creating an open ‘People’s

Court’ in which mere technicalities ‘must not obscure the greater purpose of

justice for all.’’” (citations omitted)).

Nevertheless, the record on appeal contains no transcript of the trial.

And while Hutchison did file with this court a “Statement of Evidence or

Proceedings,” see Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(5),1 there is nothing to indicate

1 Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5) provides:

3 that this Statement was approved by the lower tribunal. See Edman v.

Edman, 407 So. 3d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (affirming where no transcript

of the final hearing was contained in the record and appellant’s statement of

the evidence was not approved by trial court as required by Florida Rule of

Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5), providing that, if no report of proceedings

was made, or if the transcript is unavailable, a party may prepare a statement

of the evidence, which must be filed with lower tribunal for settlement and

approval, and, as settled and approved, must be included in the record by

the clerk of lower tribunal); Bei v. Harper, 475 So. 2d 912, 915 (Fla. 2d DCA

1985) (“A statement of evidence under Rule 9.200(b)[(5)] may be substituted

for a transcript of the proceedings only when all relevant factual disputes

have been settled and the statement of evidence is approved by the trial

court.”); Baker v. Baker, 366 So. 2d 873, 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) (where

appellant’s “proposed statement of facts” was never submitted to trial court

Statement of Evidence or Proceedings. If no report of the proceedings was made, or if the transcript is unavailable, a party may prepare a statement of the evidence or proceedings from the best available means, including the party's recollection. The statement must be served on all other parties, who may serve objections or proposed amendments to it within 15 days of service. Thereafter, the statement and any objections or proposed amendments must be filed with the lower tribunal for settlement and approval. As settled and approved, the statement must be included by the clerk of the lower tribunal in the record.

4 for approval as required by rule 9.200(b), it could not be considered by the

appellate court).

Based on our standard of review, and in the absence of a trial transcript

or approved statement of the evidence or proceedings, Hutchison cannot

sustain his burden of establishing that the trial court committed reversible

error in its rulings during the trial or its factual findings in the final judgment.

In light of this, and finding no plain error on the face of the judgment, we must

affirm. See 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.”).

Affirmed.