Daniel Garcia Gelati v. Estate of Edmundo Henriquez Ron

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: April 15, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-1243
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 15, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1243 Lower Tribunal No. 19-36014-CA-01 ________________

Daniel Garcia Gelati, Appellant,

vs.

Estate of Edmundo Henriquez Ron, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason Emilios Dimitris, Judge.

Richard Sierra & Associates, PA, and Richard Sierra (Boca Raton), for appellant.

Sordo & Associates, P.A., and Cesar R. Sordo, for appellee Servicios Instrumentals CA, LLC.

Before LINDSEY, LOBREE, and BOKOR, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Daniel Garcia Gelati appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion

to vacate a final judgment entered against him in proceedings

supplementary. The order was entered after a hearing for which there is no

transcript. In the order, the trial court makes specific findings as to why it

imposed liability against him. Gelati’s contest of these findings is of no avail

because he did not provide the hearing transcript and nothing irregular

appears on the face of the final judgment. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). On these facts, we are

constrained to affirm.

As we explained in Fernandez v. Gonzalez, Florida Rule Appellate

Procedure 9.200(e) imposes the burden on the appellant to ensure that the

record is prepared and transmitted in accordance with these rules. See 405

So. 3d 531, 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025). Indeed, “[w]ithout 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

[whole] factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude

that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”

Applegate, 377 So. 2d at 1152.

2 Here, affirmance is required because no transcript, or proper

substitute, is provided and no fundamental error appears on the face of the

order appealed. See Gaspard v. Innocent, 389 So. 3d 638, 639 (Fla. 3d DCA

2023); Mijares v. Echeverria, 365 So. 3d 426, 426 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)

(quotation omitted) (reiterating appellant’s burden of presenting a record that

overcomes the presumption of correctness afforded to the trial court’s

findings and finding “[w]here there is no record of the testimony of witnesses

or evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has not been

prepared . . . a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face

must be affirmed.”).

Affirmed.