RICHARD NAMON, JR. v. BARBARA NAMON

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed April 19, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D22-1247 Lower Tribunal No. 17-2158 ________________

Richard Namon, Jr., Appellant,

vs.

Barbara Namon, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna Sanchez-Llorens, Judge.

Richard Namon, in proper person.

Muir Law, PLLC, and William Douglas Muir, for appellee.

Before FERNANDEZ, C.J., and SCALES and GORDO, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr., 81 So. 3d

556, 558 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (“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.”); Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. Americas,

248 So. 3d 1205, 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (“[P]resenting an adequate

record—one that demonstrates not only what evidence was presented below

but also which arguments were preserved—remains the appellant’s burden

in an appeal of a summary judgment.”); 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.”); Kohn v. City of

Miami Beach, 611 So. 2d 538, 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (“We conclude that

it is a mistake to hold a pro se litigant to a lesser standard than a reasonably

competent attorney.”).