Ivanna Lisette Ortiz v. Jed Nikko Valdez Sangalang

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 6D2024-0989
• Status: Published

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-0989 Lower Tribunal No. 2015-DR-17554-O _____________________________

IVANNA LISETTE ORTIZ,

Appellant,

v.

JED NIKKO VALDEZ SANGALANG,

Appellee.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.

December 23, 2025

NARDELLA, J.

Ivanna Ortiz (“Former Wife”) appeals the entry of a temporary order which

modified time-sharing by revoking Former Wife’s time-sharing altogether and

prohibiting contact between herself and the minor child. We have jurisdiction. See

Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b.

Despite filing four post-order motions asking the trial court to reconsider its

ruling, the arguments advanced on appeal by Former Wife were never presented to

the trial court and thus are unpreserved. Klein v. Manville, 363 So. 3d 1163, 1170 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (quoting Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2005)); see

also Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 2010) (“Except in cases of

fundamental error, an appellate court cannot consider any ground for objection not

presented to the trial court.”). Further, there is no transcript of the proceedings

leading to the order modifying time-sharing. Thus, this Court is unable to reach the

merits of Former Wife’s claims and without an adequate means for evaluating the

factual issues asserted. See Appelgate 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 a to require

reversal.”). Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK, J., concur.

Michael J. Ellis and Samuel Alexander, of Alexander Appellate Law P.A., DeLand, for Appellant.

Jed Nikko Valdez Sangalang, Maitland, pro se.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED