Silvana Capuzzo v. Fred Manuel Joch

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 14, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-0632
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 14, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0632 Lower Tribunal No. 22-18044-CA-01 ________________

Silvana Capuzzo, Appellant,

vs.

Fred Manuel Joch, Appellee.

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

Law Offices of Shaun M. Zaciewski, P.A., and Shaun M. Zaciewski, for appellant.

Matthew E. Ladd, P.A., and Matthew E. Ladd, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.

SCALES, C.J. Appellant Silvana Capuzzo appeals an April 2, 2025 final judgment in

which the trial court, after conducting a bench trial, determined that a

purported ten-year residential lease between Capuzzo (as tenant) and

appellee Fred Manuel Joch (as landlord) was unenforceable.

In January 2020, the parties entered into the lease, which was

prepared by Capuzzo, a licensed real estate professional. The trial court

correctly concluded that, contrary to the requirements of former section

689.01(1) of the Florida Statutes,1 the lease agreement lacked two

subscribing witnesses and was therefore invalid. See Skylake Ins. Agency,

Inc. v. NMB Plaza, LLC, 23 So. 3d 175, 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (affirming

that portion of a summary judgment order concluding that the lease’s failure

to contain the signatures of two witnesses in violation of section 689.01(1)

rendered the subject commercial lease unenforceable).

Notwithstanding the lease’s invalidity due to the failure to comply with

former section 689.01(1), the trial court allowed Capuzzo to introduce trial

evidence on her claim that Joch should be equitably estopped from

disavowing the lease and that Joch waived his right to challenge the lease’s

1 Prior to its repeal by the Florida Legislature, effective July 1, 2020, this statute provided in relevant part that a residential lease of more than one year, such as the one allegedly contemplated by the parties, must be signed in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. § 689.01, Fla. Stat. (2019).

2 validity by accepting rent and certain improvements to the leasehold paid for

by Capuzzo. In the challenged judgment, the trial court rejected Capuzzo’s

estoppel and waiver defenses.

Capuzzo argues that we should reverse the judgment because the trial

evidence supports her estoppel and waiver arguments. We, however, have

not been provided with a trial transcript. Because claims of estoppel and

waiver are necessarily fact-based, see, e.g., Leybovich v. SecureAlert, Inc.,

237 So. 3d 1104, 1104-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), on this record we are unable

to ascertain whether the trial court’s factual determinations on estoppel and

waiver are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Fla. High School

Athletic Ass’n v. Johnson, 279 So. 3d 794, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (affirming

the trial court’s venue ruling and holding that, because “we do not have the

benefit of a hearing transcript, we are unable to determine . . . whether the

factual determinations made by the trial court at the evidentiary hearing are

supported by competent, substantial evidence[.]”). Capuzzo has not

overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s findings. Joseph

v. Henry, 367 So. 3d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Thus, we are

compelled to affirm the challenged judgment.

Affirmed.

3 4