Robert Vidal v. Barclays Bank Delaware

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

ROBERT VIDAL,

Appellant,

v.

BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE,

Appellee.

No. 4D2025-1099

[April 22, 2026]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Edmond Warren Alonzo III, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562024CC000678AXXXHC.

Robert Vidal, Port St. Lucie, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the county court’s final judgment and order denying the debtor’s motion for new trial. The debtor failed to preserve the asserted errors, failed to provide an adequate record for review, and failed to demonstrate reversible error. 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.”).

Affirmed.

KLINGENSMITH, SHAW and LOTT, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.