Myret v. Group Lx

245 So. 3d 1024
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 27, 2018
Docket17-0768
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 So. 3d 1024 (Myret v. Group Lx) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Myret v. Group Lx, 245 So. 3d 1024 (Fla. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed June 27, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D17-768 Lower Tribunal No. 12-12070 ________________

Myret, LLC, Appellant,

vs.

Group LX, Inc., et al., Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jose M. Rodriguez, Judge.

Marva L. Wiley, P.A., and Marva L. Wiley, for appellant.

Alvarez Barbara, LLP, and Richard L. Barbara and Jose L. Torres, for appellee Group LX, Inc.

Before ROTHENBERG, C.J., and SUAREZ and LAGOA, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, C.J.

Myret, LLC (“Myret”) appeals a final judgment and the trial court’s prior orders determining that Group LX, Inc. (“Group LX”) is entitled to its attorney’s

fees and setting the amount of fees. In its appeal, Myret disputes the amount of the

fees awarded. However, where, as here, no transcript of the hearing where the

amount of the fees was addressed has been provided, and the judgment is not

fundamentally erroneous on its face, we must affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett

Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979):

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.

See also Smith v. Orhama Inc., 907 So. 2d 594, 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (holding

that without the ability to see what the trial court actually found in reference to the

evidence presented below, it is not possible to reverse unless there is fundamental

error on the face of the trial court’s order); Ahmed v. Travelers Indem. Co., 516

So. 2d 40, 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) (“Where there is no record of the testimony of

witnesses or of evidentiary rulings, and where a statement of the record has not

been prepared pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(a)(3) or

(b)(3), a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on its face must be

affirmed.”).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Leda Loynaz Pacific v. Peninsula Association Inc.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2026

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 So. 3d 1024, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myret-v-group-lx-fladistctapp-2018.