IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND
APPELLATE
DIVISION
SMOKEY F.C.
ELLIS,
Appellant,
vs. Appeal No. 06-0024AP-88A
UCN522006P000024XXXXCV
MARY NANOS,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Appeal from
Small Claims Division
Smokey F.C. Ellis
Appellant, pro se
ORDER AND OPINION
THIS
CAUSE came before the Court on appeal, filed by Smokey F.C. Ellis (Ellis), from
the Final Judgment for Defendant, entered March 10, 2006. Upon review of the Initial Brief,[1]
the record and being otherwise fully advised, the Court affirms the trial
court’s ruling as set forth below.
The record shows that Ellis filed a Statement of Claim in Small Claims Court against Mary Nanos
(Nanos) seeking to recover unpaid rent in the amount of $ 495.00, plus
costs. After a non-jury trial, the trial
court entered its Final Judgment for Defendant.
As set forth in the Final Judgment, the trial court found that:
Defendant/Tenant
never sued for return of [the] $ 550.00 security deposit. Landlord never sued for damages in excess of
the deposit. From the evidence the Court
concludes that Landlord’s retention of the security deposit more than
compensates Landlord for alleged damages.
Landlord
has failed to mitigate damages for unpaid rent, but has allowed the premises to
remain vacant so that he might make repairs himself when convenient. Therefore, Defendant is not responsible for
Landlord’s loss of rental income.
Before this
Court, Ellis’ basic argument is that the trial court erred in entered Final
Judgment for Nanos. 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 (
The Court finds that the contract
attached to Ellis’ Statement of Claim and the Notice of Intention to Impose
Claim, identified in the record as Exhibit # 1, both show that the security
deposit totaled $ 550.00. This is
competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that the
security deposit covered Ellis’ claim for damages. See Department of Highway Safety
and Motor Vehicles v. Trimble, 821 So.2d 1084, 1087 (
Further, Ellis is otherwise unable to demonstrate reversible error or overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s ruling without a 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 Smiley v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 704 So.2d 204, 205 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(explaining that the appellate court cannot substitute its opinion on the evidence but rather must indulge every fact and inference in support of the trial court’s judgment, which is the equivalent of a jury verdict).
Therefore, it is,
ORDERED
AND ADJUDGED that the Final Judgment for Defendant is affirmed.
DONE AND
ORDERED in Chambers, at
________________________________
R. TIMOTHY PETERS
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
______________________________ ______________________________
GEORGE M. JIROTKA CYNTHIA
J.
Circuit Judge, Appellate Division Circuit Judge, Appellate Division
Copies furnished to:
Judge Walt Fullerton
Smokey F.C. Ellis
3455 –
Mary Nanos
6275 –
[1] Nanos failed to file an
answer brief even after being directed to do so. However, the Court cannot not reverse the
trial court based solely on Nanos’ failure to file an answer brief and must
review this case on the merits of the Initial Brief and the appellate
record. See State, Board of
Optometry v. Florida Society of Opthalmology, 538 So.2d 878, 888 (Fla. 1st
DCA 1988)(explaining that appellate court must review case on the merits even
when no answer brief is filed).