Alkawanna S. Kelley v. William M. Kelley II
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledSeptember 9, 2026
Docket3D2025-2373
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed September 9, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D25-2373
Lower Tribunal No. 23-6055-CP-02
________________
Alkawanna S. Kelley, et al.,
Appellants,
vs.
William M. Kelley, II,
Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E.
Cueto, Judge.
Alkawanna S. Kelley and Altramese D. Kelley, in proper persons.
No appearance, for appellee.
Before FERNANDEZ, GORDO and REBULL, JJ.
GORDO, J.
The Kelley sisters1 appeal the entry of a final order of discharge
entered in favor of their brother. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P.
9.030(b)(1)(A). The sisters argue on appeal that the trial court erred in
entering the order of discharge while contested matters remained pending
and unresolved.
The sisters concede, however, that the trial court held a hearing where
it considered the very matters the sisters now contend are pending and
unresolved. Following the hearing, the court entered the appealed order
finding that the estate was fully administered, no unresolved matter remained
pending and discharged the brother as personal representative—closing the
estate. See § 733.901, Fla. Stat. (“After administration has been completed,
the personal representative shall be discharged”); Conger’s Estate v.
Conger, 414 So. 2d 230, 233 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (“An order of the probate
court arrives in the appellate court clothed with the presumption of its
correctness and will be affirmed if it can be supported on any theory. The
findings of a probate court are entitled to the same weight as the findings of
any other trier of fact. The burden is on the appellant to show that the
findings and order of the probate court are clearly erroneous.” (internal
1
Alkawanna S. Kelley and Altramese D. Kelley.
2
citations omitted) (quoting Beck v. Beck, 383 So. 2d 268, 272 (Fla. 3d DCA
1980))).
Fatal to the sisters’ arguments on appeal is their failure to provide this
Court with a transcript of the discharge hearing. As the discharge order is
not fundamentally erroneous on its face, we are constrained to affirm. See
Hutchison v. Blanco, 423 So. 3d 981, 983 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
(“Nevertheless, the record on appeal contains no transcript of the trial. And
while [Appellant] did file with this court a ‘Statement of Evidence or
Proceedings,’ there is nothing to indicate that this Statement was approved
by the lower tribunal. Based on our standard of review, and in the absence
of a trial transcript or approved statement of the evidence or proceedings,
[Appellant] cannot sustain his burden of establishing that the trial court
committed reversible error in its rulings during the trial or its factual findings
in the final judgment. In light of this and finding no plain error on the face of
the judgment, we must affirm.” (internal citations omitted)); Coleman v. Horn,
422 So. 3d 730, 732–33 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (“Notably, the record on appeal
contains neither a transcript of the evidentiary hearing nor a settled and
approved statement of the evidence under Florida Rule of Appellate
Procedure 9.200(b)(5). . . . Given the lack of a transcript of the testimony at
the evidentiary hearing or a statement of the evidence settled and approved
3
by the trial court under rule 9.200(b)(5), and discerning no fundamental error
on the face of the order, we must assume that the trial court’s determination.
. . was correct.”); Zarate v. Deutsche Bank Nat. 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. . . a judgment which is not fundamentally erroneous on
its face must be affirmed.”); Edman v. Edman, 407 So. 3d 452, 454–55 (Fla.
4th DCA 2025) (“[Appellant’s] submitted statement of the evidence was not
approved by the trial court—a requirement of the rule. Therefore, we must
reject the statement of the evidence for failure to comply with [rule
9.200(b)(4)].” (internal citation omitted)).
Affirmed.
4