Letticia Lopez v. Pedro Fernandez

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0486
• 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. 3D25-486 Lower Tribunal No. 19-13547-FC-04 ________________

Letticia Lopez, Appellant,

vs.

Pedro Fernandez, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Stacy D. Glick, Judge.

Letticia Lopez, in proper person.

Craig E. Weissberg, P.A., and Craig E. Weissberg, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and LOBREE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Letticia Lopez, the mother, appeals from a final order granting a permanent injunction sought by the father Pedro Fernandez, for protection

of their minor child. We have jurisdiction. See Art. V, § 4(b)(1), Fla. Const.;

Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(B). We affirm.

No transcripts were provided nor was any statement of the evidence

or proceedings prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure

9.200(b)(4), (5). Without an adequate record, we are limited to a review of

the order entered by the lower court. 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. . . . 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’s

findings were predicated upon the best interests of the child. Finding no legal

error apparent on the face of the order, we affirm. See Saenz v. Diaz, 50

Fla. L. Weekly D1379, D1380 (Fla. 3d DCA June 25, 2025); Sheikh v.

Mughal-Sheikh, 114 So. 3d 212, 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012).

Affirmed.