Robbins v. Deutsche Bank , 241 So. 3d 269 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FIFTH DISTRICT
    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
    JERRY D. ROBBINS AND LORI H.
    ROBBINS,
    Appellants,
    v.                                                     Case No. 5D15-3789
    DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST,
    ETC., ET AL.
    Appellees.
    ________________________________/
    Opinion filed March 29, 2018
    Appeal from the Circuit Court
    for Orange County,
    John Marshall Kest, Judge.
    Jerry D. Robbins and Lori H. Robbins,
    Windermere, pro se.
    Elliot B. Kula, W. Aaron Daniel, and William
    D. Mueller, of Kula & Associates, P.A.,
    Miami, for Appellee Deutsche Bank
    National Trust, etc.
    No Appearance for Remaining Appellees.
    PER CURIAM.
    AFFIRMED. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 
    377 So. 2d 1150
    ,
    1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding that lack of a transcript is fatal to arguments on appeal which
    are based on the evidence at trial); Taylor v. Bateman, 
    927 So. 2d 1024
    , 1026 (Fla. 4th
    DCA 2006) (“The piecemeal transcripts deprived this court of the ability to review the
    record as a whole. Such record omissions are fatal to an appeal.”); see also Bank of N.Y.
    Mellon v. Milford, 
    206 So. 3d 137
    , 137–38 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“Here, the bank filed a
    copy of the note indorsed in blank with its complaint. Later at trial, through the testimony
    of the custodian of records for the loan servicer, the bank entered the original note into
    evidence. This created an inference that the bank was in possession of the note at the
    time it filed its complaint. Without any evidence to the contrary, this was sufficient to
    establish standing.” (citing Ortiz v. PNC Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 
    188 So. 3d 923
    , 925 (Fla. 4th
    DCA 2016))); Labor Ready Se. Inc. v. Australian Warehouses Condo. Ass'n, 
    962 So. 2d 1053
    , 1055–56 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (“[R]eversal is not required in every case where there
    has not been strict compliance with rule 1.440. Rather, depending upon the
    circumstances, the mandatory provision of the rule may be waived.” (alteration in original)
    (citation omitted)).
    PALMER, TORPY AND EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 5D15-3789

Citation Numbers: 241 So. 3d 269

Filed Date: 3/26/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/6/2018