Jason Richard Baumann v. Sara Cardona Agudelo

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0755
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed September 24, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0755 Lower Tribunal No. 18-20259-FC-04 ________________

Jason Richard Baumann, Appellant,

vs.

Sara Cardona Agudelo, Appellee.

An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Diana Vizcaino, Judge.

Metschlaw, P.A., and Lawrence Richard Metsch (Hollywood), for appellant.

Law Offices of Richard G. Dunberg, and Richard G. Dunberg, for appellee.

Before EMAS, FERNANDEZ and GORDO, JJ.

GORDO, J. Jason Richard Baumann (“Baumann”) appeals a non-final order

granting three of Sara Cardona Agudelo’s (“Agudelo”) motions for writs of

garnishment. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). We

affirm.

In the underlying action, the trial court awarded Agudelo $65,789.50 in

attorney’s fees and costs under section 61.16, Florida Statutes. 1 To collect

on the fee award, Agudelo, through counsel, moved for writs of garnishment

against Baumann’s bank and other commercial accounts. Following an

evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Agudelo’s garnishment motions.

While Baumann challenges Agudelo’s standing to seek writs of

garnishment, he provided no transcript or substitute record of the evidentiary

hearing. Because the trial court’s order is presumed correct and no error

appears on its face, we cannot conclude the court so misconceived the law

as to warrant reversal. Thus, we affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of

Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1151-52 (Fla. 1979) (“Barnett Bank appealed

but did not bring forward any substitute for a trial transcript. . . . In appellate

proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness

1 We previously affirmed this award on appeal. See Baumann v. Agudelo, 404 So. 3d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 2024).

2 and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. . . . The written final

judgment by the trial court could well be wrong in its reasoning, but the

decision of the trial court is primarily what matters, not the reasoning used.

Even when based on erroneous reasoning, a conclusion or decision of a trial

court will generally be affirmed if the evidence or an alternative theory

supports it. . . . 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.

The trial court should have been affirmed because the record brought

forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.”)

(citations omitted); Dieguez v. Weissberg, 3 So. 3d 441, 441 (Fla. 3d DCA

2009) (“In the absence of a proper record, a presumption of correctness

attaches to the trial court’s decision and this Court’s review is limited to

whether errors appear on the face of the judgment. Here, the client has failed

to overcome the presumption of correctness attached to the trial court’s

decision, and no errors appear on the face of the trial court's decision.

3 Accordingly, the order on appeal is affirmed in all respects.”).

Affirmed.