Edward Guerra v. Parc Lofts Condominium Association, Inc.

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1990
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed July 23, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1990 Lower Tribunal No. 19-11886-CA-01 ________________

Edward Guerra, Appellant,

vs.

Parc Lofts Condominium Association, Inc., Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Pedro P. Echarte, Jr., Judge.

Edward Guerra, in proper person.

Strang Tryson P.A., and Alexis Hernandez, for appellee.

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

GORDO, J. Edward Guerra, pro se, appeals a final order denying his motion to

intervene in a foreclosure action. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P.

9.030(b)(1)(A); see also Accident911 Help Med. Ctr. Corp. v. Direct Gen. Ins.

Co., 387 So. 3d 360, 361 n.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (“The order denying

intervention is a final order because it constitutes a final determination—and

ends all judicial labor—as it relates to appellants’ participation in the

underlying litigation.”). Because we lack a transcript of the hearing which led

to the final order, we are unable to review the trial court’s factual findings and

resulting legal conclusions. Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm. See

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

(“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption

of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error . . .

When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily asks the reviewing

court to draw conclusions about the evidence. 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.