DANIEL A. GONZALEZ v. FORT DALLAS TRUSS CO., LLC
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
Date FiledApril 29, 2020
Docket3D19-1753
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed April 29, 2020.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D19-1753
Lower Tribunal No. 17-29366
________________
Daniel A. Gonzalez,
Appellant,
vs.
Fort Dallas Truss Co., LLC, et al.,
Appellees.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Daryl E. Trawick,
Judge.
James H. Greason, for appellant.
Keith J. Merrill, P.A., and Keith J. Merrill, for appellees.
Before EMAS, C.J., and FERNANDEZ and GORDO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150,
1152 (Fla. 1979) (holding: “The question raised by [appellant] clearly involves
underlying issues of fact. When there are issues of fact the appellant necessarily
asks the reviewing court to draw conclusions about the evidence. Without a record
of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly resolve the underlying
factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court's judgment is not supported by the
evidence or by an alternative theory. Without knowing the factual context, neither
can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the
law as to require reversal. The trial court should have been affirmed because the
record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate to demonstrate reversible
error”); E & A Produce Corp. v. Superior Garlic Int'l, Inc., 864 So. 2d 449, 452 (Fla.
3d DCA 2003) (noting: “We are unable [] to determine under what grounds the
attorneys' fees here were awarded and whether or not the trial court made the
requisite findings because there is no transcript of the hearing on the entitlement to
attorney's fees. Without a transcript, the record is inadequate for us to review E &
A's contention, and we cannot find that the trial court abused its discretion in making
the award.”) See also Stockman v. Downs, 573 So. 2d 835, 838 (Fla. 1991) (holding
that, as a general rule, a claim for attorney’s fees must be pled, but recognizing an
exception: “Where a party has notice that an opponent claims entitlement to
attorney's fees, and by its conduct recognizes or acquiesces to that claim or otherwise
2
fails to object to the failure to plead entitlement that party waives any objection to
the failure to plead a claim for attorney's fees”); Margolis v. Klein, 184 So. 2d 205,
206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966) (trial court dismissed counterclaim and appellant contended
on appeal that trial court should have granted leave to amend; this court, noting there
was nothing in the record to indicate appellant had sought leave to amend the
counterclaim, affirmed, holding: “It is elementary that before a trial judge will be
held in error, he must be presented with an opportunity to rule on the matter before
him”).
3