Small Claims Court: APPELLATE PROCEDURE – record - Without a transcript
of the hearing in this case and no error of law appearing on the face of the
final judgment, appellant could not overcome presumption of correctness of
trial court’s decision and demonstrate reversible error – Final judgment affirmed.
Strickland v. Doyne, No. 02-4722-CI-88A (
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
JAMES ALLAN STRICKLAND,
vs. Appeal No. 02-4722-CI-88A
Small Claims 02-1380SC-48
MARK DOYNE d/b/a/ WORLD
Opinion filed ________________________
Appeal from Final Judgment
Court, Small Claims Division,
The Honorable William B. Blackwood
James A. Strickland
Appellant, pro se
Appellee, pro se
ORDER AND OPINION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal from the County Court for
This matter arose when Appellant filed a Statement of Claim in Small Claims Court on February 14, 2002, alleging that the Defendant (Appellee) owed him money in a contract dispute and alleging gross misrepresentation of the vehicle brought from Defendant (Appellee). The vehicle, a 1981 Delorean, was bought through eBay, the online auction site, and was not inspected prior to purchase. Upon delivery, the Appellant alleged that it was not in the condition represented by the Appellee and sued for the sum of money it took to get the car into the condition as represented at time of purchase.
Plaintiff’s evidence exhibits at trial included a series of emails between the parties, pictures of the Delorean, sales receipts for parts bought by Plaintiff (Appellant) and cost sheets. Defendant’s evidence exhibit showed that the purchase price of the vehicle was below the low range of the NADA Appraisal Guides.
On April 25, 2002 a Final Judgment was entered in favor of the Appellee, stating that the Plaintiff (Appellant) was unable to present sufficient evidence to establish breach of any particular terms of contract and was unable to present sufficient proof to establish fraudulent misrepresentation. On May 3, 2002, the Plaintiff’s Motion for New Trial was denied, the court noting that “the Plaintiff has stated no grounds to justify a new trial but simply seeks a “second bit of the apple.”
Appellant timely appealed the Final Judgment and in his brief has reargued the evidence of the case once more without pointing to any errors or objections made in the lower tribunal. The Appellee has not filed an answer brief.
This is simply a case where the trial judge made his decision based on the facts before him and Appellant contests that decision. It is not the function of an appellate court to supplant its view of the facts for those of the trier-of-fact or to permit the Appellant to have a second trial. See Persinger v. Estate of Tibbets, 727 So.2d 350 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
On appeal, a trial court’s decision has a presumption of correctness
and the burden is on the appellant to overcome this presumption and demonstrate
reversible error. See Sorrels v. Rebecca’s Ice Cream, Inc., 696 So.2d 1313,
1314 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). To show error,
the appellant must provide the appellate court with an adequate record of
the trial proceedings so that the court can properly consider all relevant
factual issues and determine if the trial court’s judgment was supported by
the evidence and whether the issues were properly preserved for appeal. See
Applegate v Barnett Bank of
In this case, the Appellant has not provided this Court with a trial
transcript or a proper substitute. Without a transcript of the hearing in
this case, this Court may reverse only if an error of law appears on the face
of the final judgment. See Whelan v.
Whelan, 736 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); see also Pearce v. Pearce,
773 So.2d 1286 (
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Final Judgment is affirmed.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at
JOHN A. SCHAEFER
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies Furnished To:
Appellant, pro se
Doyne, World Auto Sales,
Appellee, pro se