Eugene J. Steppe v. Miami Beach Realty

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 16, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1807
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

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

________________

No. 3D24-1807 Lower Tribunal No. 22-20159-CA-01 ________________

Eugene J. Steppe, Appellant,

vs.

Miami Beach Realty, et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Peter R. Lopez, Judge.

Eugene J. Steppe, in proper person.

Lynx Law PLLC and Christopher B. Spuches, for appellees.

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

PER CURIAM.

Eugene J. Steppe appeals a final judgment entered in favor of Miami Beach Realty, LLC, d/b/a Keller Williams Miami Beach (“Miami Beach

Realty”) and Kathrin Rein following a non-jury trial. “When a cause is tried

without a jury, the trial judge’s findings of fact are clothed with a presumption

of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the

appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.” J&R United

Indus., Inc. v. Miron, 353 So. 3d 1250, 1252 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023) (quoting

Sunshine State Ins. Co. v. Davide, 117 So. 3d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA

2013)). “A factual finding made by a trial court in a non-jury trial is clearly

erroneous only when there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, it is clearly

against the weight of the evidence or it was induced by an erroneous view of

the law.” Fito v. Att’y’s Title Ins. Fund, Inc., 83 So. 3d 755, 757 (Fla. 3d DCA

2011). On appeal, Steppe argues final judgment was improper because his

wife, Maria Steppe, never signed a sales contract with the buyer procured

by Miami Beach Realty and Rein. We find this argument is belied by the

record as there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence showing

Steppe’s wife signed the sales contract or that Steppe signed the contract

on her behalf. Steppe also takes issue with the trial court’s determination as

to credibility of the witnesses, but “[i]t is not the function of this court to

reweigh the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses in the trial court

proceedings.” Citibank, N.A. v. Julien J. Studley, Inc., 580 So. 2d 784, 785–

2 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).

Further, our review in this case is hindered by the lack of a trial

transcript. “An appellant has the burden to present a record that will

overcome the presumption of the correctness of the trial court’s findings.”

Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l. Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 556, 557 (Fla. 3d DCA

2012). “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.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152

(Fla. 1979); see also Balsam v. S. Palm Beach Fin. Corp., 695 So. 2d 1267,

1268 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“[T]he lack of a transcript prevents [the appellate

court] from determining whether this issue was properly preserved by

objection below.”). As the record is devoid of any evidence to contradict the

appropriateness of the final judgment, we are compelled to affirm.

Affirmed.