JEAN CLAUDE JOSEPH II v. CAROLINE HENRY

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: August 2, 2023
• Docket: 22-1554
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed August 2, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1554 Lower Tribunal No. 22-3771 CC ________________

Jean Claude Joseph II, Appellant,

vs.

Caroline Henry, Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Caryn Canner Schwartz, Senior Judge.

Huggins Peil, LLC, and Robert A. Kerr (Evans, GA), for appellant.

No Appearance, for appellee.

Before LINDSEY, GORDO, and LOBREE, JJ.

LINDSEY, J. Jean Claude Joseph II (the “Landlord”) appeals from a county court

order dismissing his eviction action against Caroline Henry (the “Tenant”) for

lack of standing. We affirm because the Landlord did not provide this Court

with the relevant hearing transcript.

The Landlord filed an eviction action against the Tenant seeking to

terminate her month-to-month tenancy. The Tenant raised several

affirmative defenses, including lack of standing due to the property being

sold to a new owner. Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the action

for lack of standing. The Landlord then moved for rehearing. The trial court

entered an order denying rehearing and explained it had already considered

and rejected the grounds raised in the Landlord’s motion at the “extensive

hearing” on standing. The court further stated that the Landlord admitted he

was no longer the owner of the property, and therefore, he had no authority

to request substitution with the correct owner. Finally, the order clarified that

dismissal was without prejudice to the new owner filing an eviction action.

The Landlord appealed but has not provided this Court with a transcript

of the “extensive hearing” on standing. We are therefore compelled to affirm.

See Fuhrman v. Sara G 01, LLC, 47 Fla. L. Weekly D2640 (Fla. 3d DCA

Dec. 14, 2022) (“[T]he lack of a trial transcript or a proper substitute results

2 in a record that is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error and requires

affirmance.”).

It is firmly established that “[i]n appellate proceedings the decision of a

trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the

appellant to demonstrate error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee,

377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). “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. Tr. Co., 81 So. 3d 556, 557

(Fla. 3d DCA 2012).

As our Supreme Court explained in Applegate:

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.

377 So. 2d at 1152.

Here, the Landlord has failed to overcome the presumption of

correctness because he did not provide this Court with a transcript of the

hearing in which the lower court considered the issue of standing and ruled

to dismiss the eviction action. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.