Stephen Sanker v. James Baptiste

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: January 28, 2026
• Docket: 3D2025-0616
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed January 28, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D25-0616 Lower Tribunal No. 25-42933-CC-20 ________________

Stephen Sanker, Appellant,

vs.

James Baptiste, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Kevin Hellmann, Judge.

Stephen Sanker, in proper person.

James Baptiste, in proper person.

Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and GORDO, JJ.

LINDSEY, J., Appellant, Stephen Sanker (“Tenant”), appeals the trial court’s rent

deposit order and final judgment of eviction. The trial court’s determination

was based on its “assessment of the credibility and accuracy of sworn

testimony provided by [Tenant] and Defendant Stephen Sanker during the

hearing on the Motion to Determine Rent.” Yet, Tenant did not provide a

transcript of the proceedings that the trial court’s rent determination order

and final judgment of eviction rely on. Accordingly, we affirm in all respects.

As we explained in Halmos v. Longstock II, LLC, “[t]he failure to

produce a transcript of the proceedings is usually fatal to a party’s appeal.”

282 So. 3d 924, 924 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019); see also 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.”). “This applies to the

summary procedure of eviction hearings.” Halmos, 282 So. 3d at 924 (citing

Nichilo v. Fisher, 964 So. 2d 738, 740-41 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (noting that

there is no requirement for specific factual findings in the order, and lack of

record required affirmance)).

Thus, the record is incomplete to permit us to determine whether error

occurred. As such, affirmance is proper, particularly here, whereas the trial

2 court’s determination was based on a credibility assessment. See Aabbott

v. Kligman, 418 So. 3d 724, 725 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (quotation omitted)

(“The credibility of witnesses is within the trial court's exclusive purview. It is

inappropriate for an appellate court to reweigh the evidence and credibility

of witnesses. And so we defer to the trial court as to issues of credibility.”).

Affirmed.