County Civil Court: APPELLATE PROCEDURE – Preservation of Error – lack of transcript - Appellant is unable to demonstrate reversible error or overcome presumption of correctness of trial court’s ruling without a transcript - Final Judgment affirmed.  Stanelis v. Age Institute of Florida, Appeal No. 06-0054AP-88B (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. June 14, 2007). 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

 

RAYMOND STANELIS,

                        Appellant,

 

vs.                                                                                        Appeal No. 06-0054AP-88B

                                                                                            UCN522006P000054XXXXCV

 

AGE INSTITUTE OF FLORIDA,

                        Appellee.

____________________________________________/

Appeal from Pinellas County Court

 

Raymond Stanelis

Appellant, pro se

 

Shawn E. Harrison, Esquire

Kevin W. Fenton, Esquire

Attorneys for Appellee

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal, filed by Raymond Stanelis (Stanelis), from the Final Judgment, entered August 4, 2006, in favor of Age Institute of Florida (Age Institute).  Upon review of the briefs, the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court affirms the trial court’s ruling as set forth below.

The record shows that, on February 21, 2005, Age Institute filed its Complaint against Stanelis seeking damages for breach of contract as a result of Stanelis’ failure to pay for services rendered by Age Institute to Stanelis’ mother.  After a non-jury trial, the trial court entered Final Judgment in favor of Age Institute finding that Stanelis was liable for services rendered totaling $ 5,820.76, plus costs and interest.

Before this Court, Stanelis argues that the trial court erred in granting final judgment in favor of Age Institute.  The trial court’s interpretation of a contract is a matter of law subject to a de novo standard of review.  See Jenkins v. Eckerd Corporation, 913 So.2d 43, 49 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).  Even applying a de novo standard of review, the Court finds that Stanelis is unable to demonstrate reversible error as there is no transcript of the proceedings below.  See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979)(stating that the decision of the trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error); Bei v. Harper, 475 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)(same). 

Therefore, it is,

            ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Final Judgment is affirmed.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida this ______ of June 2007.

 

                                                         ________________________________

                                                         DAVID A. DEMERS

                                                         Circuit Judge, Appellate Division

 

 

 

 

 

______________________________                        ______________________________

AMY M. WILLIAMS                                               PETER RAMSBERGER

Circuit Judge, Appellate Division                                   Circuit Judge, Appellate Division

Copies furnished to:

Judge Kathleen T. Hessinger

 

Raymond Stanelis

506 – 71st Avenue #7

St. Pete Beach, FL  33706

 

Shawn E. Harrison, Esquire

Kevin W. Fenton, Esquire

1010 North Florida Avenue

Tampa, FL  33602