RICHARD NAMON, JR. v. BARBARA NAMON

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.”).
2