Payal Khare v. Pankaj Khare

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: October 29, 2025
• Docket: 3D2025-0151
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed October 29, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0151 Lower Tribunal No. 23-16387-FC-04 ________________

Payal Khare, Appellant,

vs.

Pankaj Khare, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Spencer Multack, Judge.

Payal Khare, in proper person.

Abramowitz and Associates, and Jordan B. Abramowitz and Lily C. Glickstein, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and LINDSEY, and LOBREE, JJ.

LINDSEY, J. Appellant, Payal Khare, appeals the trial court’s final order granting

Appellee’s, Pankaj Khare, motion to dismiss Appellant’s dissolution of

marriage action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal

jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens. Appellant argues the trial court’s

order misapplies legal standards, mischaracterizes evidence, fails to

properly weigh evidence, and improperly relies on Appellee’s claims. But,

Appellant failed to provide us a transcript of the evidentiary hearing that the

trial court’s order relies on. 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.”). So we are constrained to affirm.

Appellant also argues that the trial court improperly dismissed her

petition because the trial court neglected exercising its in rem jurisdiction. Not

only are we unable to glean from the deficient record why the trial court did

not use its in rem jurisdiction, but Appellant also failed to raise the issue

below, thus waiving it. See Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So.

2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005) (“As a general rule, it is not appropriate for a party to

2 raise an issue for the first time on appeal. . . . ‘In order to be preserved for

further review by a higher court, an issue must be presented to the lower court

and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review

must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered

preserved.’”) (citations omitted) (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35

(Fla. 1985)). Absent fundamental error, which is not present here, we are

compelled to affirm.1

Affirmed.

1 “Fundamental error, which can be reviewed on appeal without preservation in the trial court, is error which goes to the foundation of the case or the merits of the cause of action.” Coleman Co. v. Cargil Int’l Corp., 731 So. 2d 2, 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (citing Sanford v. Rubin, 237 So. 2d 134, 137 (Fla.1970)).