Noel Pantoja, Sr. v. Bethany Francis

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: March 18, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-1556
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed March 18, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-1556 Lower Tribunal No. 02-6818-FC-04 ________________

Noel Pantoja, Sr., Appellant,

vs.

Bethany Francis, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Linda Melendez, Judge.

Noel Pantoja, Sr., in proper person.

No appearance, for appellee.

Before MILLER, GORDO and GOODEN, JJ.

GORDO, J. Noel Pantoja, Sr. appeals from a final order denying his motion to

dissolve a permanent injunction for protection against repeat violence

entered in favor of Bethany Francis. We have jurisdiction. Fla. R. App. P.

9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm.

Pantoja argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying

dissolution because the injunction is old and should be dissolved. But the

trial court here had a full hearing and Pantoja concedes that no transcript of

the hearing has been provided to this Court. Without a transcript, we are

unable to evaluate what evidence, testimony and arguments were presented

or what factual findings underlay the trial court’s ruling. In the absence of a

transcript, we must presume that the trial court’s decision is supported by

competent substantial evidence. The burden rests squarely on Pantoja to

demonstrate reversible error and where the record is incomplete, that burden

cannot be met. See Applegate 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 as to require reversal. . . . [T]he record brought forward by the

2 appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.”); White v. White,

717 So. 2d 89, 90 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (“There is no transcript of the hearing

in the record before us and we will not disturb the trial court’s finding.”).

Unlike the movant in cases where reversal was warranted because the

undisputed evidence showed no contact, no threats and no objective basis

for fear, we do not have a record demonstrating that the facts here are

similarly one-sided. We simply do not know what evidence was presented

at the hearing. Thus, we are compelled to affirm. See Hobbs v. Hobbs, 290

So. 3d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“Trial courts have ‘broad discretion

in granting, denying, dissolving, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear

abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial

court's decision.’” (quoting Noe v. Noe, 217 So. 3d 196, 199 (Fla. 1st DCA

2017))); Labrake v. Labrake, 335 So. 3d 214, 217 (Fla. 1st DCA 2022) (“After

an injunction has been entered, either party to the injunction may move to

modify or dissolve the injunction at any time. A party moving to dissolve the

injunction must show changed circumstances. To establish a change in

circumstances, the movant must demonstrate that the scenario underlying

the injunction no longer exists so that the continuation of the injunction would

serve no valid purpose. A trial court considers, when determining whether

the injunction continues to serve a valid purpose, whether the victim

3 reasonably maintains a continuing fear of becoming a victim of domestic

violence.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Garcia v. Garcia,

958 So. 2d 947, 948-49 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (“[B]ecause the Appellant failed

to provide this Court with a transcript of the hearing below, the record

presented to us is inadequate to demonstrate whether the trial court abused

its discretion in denying the motion[.] Accordingly, we are required to affirm

the trial court’s order.”).

Affirmed.