Diane Scott v. Robert Broughton

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 16, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1635 Lower Tribunal No. 22-SC-114-M ________________

Diane Scott, Appellant,

vs.

Robert Broughton, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Monroe County, James W. Morgan, III, Judge.

Diane Scott, in proper person.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, MILLER, and GORDO, JJ.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM. Appellant Diane Scott timely moved for rehearing of her appeal. We

write to clarify why we cannot grant the relief Scott seeks.

This is an error-correcting court. We do not admit or weigh evidence,

and our ruling does not mean that we disbelieve Scott or take any position

on the merits of her case. Rather, we apply the law to the record provided

to us to determine whether a lower tribunal’s ruling was erroneous or properly

supported.

The trial court ruled in its Final Judgment that Scott failed to meet her

burden of proof at the September 22, 2023 trial. It may be, as Scott claims

in her Motion for Rehearing, that “evidence was excluded.” But without a

transcript of that trial provided to us in the record, we cannot determine

whether the trial court excluded evidence for a proper reason or whether it

did so erroneously. In other words, we “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.” Applegate v.

Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979).

Accordingly, we must deny the Motion for Rehearing.

Denied.