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.  Graydon v. Promo, Appeal No. 06-0015AP-88B (Fla. 6th Cir. App. Ct. Feb. 27, 2007). 

 

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

 

 

BRYAN A. GRAYDON,

                        Appellant,

 

vs.                                                                                    Appeal No. 06-0015AP-88B

                                                                                        UCN522006AP000015XXXXCV

 

JUDITH PROMO,

                        Appellee.

_________________________________________/

Appeal from Pinellas County Court

Small Claims Division

 

Bryan A. Graydon, pro se

 

Judith Promo, pro se

 

 

 

ORDER AND OPINION

 

            THIS CAUSE came before the Court on appeal, filed by Bryan A. Graydon (Graydon), from the Final Judgment for Defendant, entered March 16, 2005.  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 September 27, 2001, Graydon filed a Statement of Claim in Small Claims Court against Judith Promo (Promo) seeking damages for unpaid labor pursuant to an oral contract entered into between the parties.  Graydon alleged that Promo owed him $ 2,841.37 for work that he performed at a condominium owned by Promo, including work related to painting, electrical, plumbing, drywall, and miscellaneous renovations.  Promo appeared for the pre-trial conference and disputed Graydon’s allegations.  The matter went to trial on March 14, 2005.[1]  After considering the testimony and evidence, the trial court entered its Final Judgment for Defendant, ruling that Graydon would take nothing by his action.  Graydon filed a timely Motion for Rehearing.  On January 26, 2006, the trial court denied Graydon’s Motion for Rehearing.[2] 

                Before this Court, Graydon argues that the trial court erred in entering judgment in favor of Promo.  The Court finds that Graydon 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); see also Bei v. Harper, 475 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)(same).  Further, “[w]hen a case is tried without a jury, the trial judge’s findings are clothed with a presumption of correctness on appeal, and these findings will not be disturbed unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous.”  See Universal Beverages Holdings, Inc. v. Merkin, 902 So.2d 288, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); see also Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So.2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(same).

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, it is,

            ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Final Judgment for Defendant is affirmed.

            DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida this ______ of February 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 Dorothy Vaccaro

 

Bryan A. Graydon

Post Office Box 5733

Clearwater, FL  33758-5733

 

Judith Promo

17920 Gulf Boulevard, # 1305

Reddington Shores, FL  33708

 


 

[1] Graydon was represented by counsel during the trial.

[2] It is unclear why it took the trial court almost a year to rule on Graydon’s Motion for Rehearing.  The delay has no bearing on the outcome of this appeal.