358 So.3d 806
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2023Background
- Midland Funding filed an account stated complaint against Luis Romero in December 2019; Romero did not answer or otherwise respond to the complaint.
- Midland moved for summary judgment in August 2021; Romero filed no response or request for additional time.
- Midland attached an employee affidavit, a bill of sale/assignment, credit card statements showing past-due balances, and an affidavit of costs to its motion.
- The trial court held a hearing in January 2022 and entered final summary judgment for Midland; Romero appeals claiming Midland’s evidence was deficient and the court refused to hear his arguments.
- The appellate court reviews summary judgment de novo and applies the amended Rule 1.510 standard (no reasonable jury could find for the nonmovant).
- The appellate court affirmed: Midland met its initial burden; Romero did not present contrary admissible evidence or preserve arguments on the record and failed to supply a hearing transcript or any response below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on account stated was proper | Midland’s evidentiary showing was deficient; SJ improper | Midland produced affidavit, assignment, statements, costs showing no genuine dispute | Affirmed — Midland met initial burden; Romero produced no evidence to create a genuine dispute |
| Whether Romero preserved his complaint that the court refused to hear his arguments | Trial court declined to hear Romero’s alleged objections at the hearing | Romero never presented the argument or admissible evidence to the trial court; issue waived | Affirmed — issue not preserved; appellant bears burden to present adequate record (no transcript or filings) |
| Whether lack of transcript prevents appellate review of alleged hearing errors | Romero asserts hearing errors but provided no transcript | Midland: absence of transcript means appellate record insufficient to show preserved errors | Affirmed — appellant must supply record; pro se status does not excuse compliance with appellate rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Orozco v. McCormick 105, LLC, 276 So. 3d 932 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- In re Amends. to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510, 317 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 2021) (adopting amended summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (evidence must permit reasonable jury to find for nonmovant to avoid SJ)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (nonmovant must present specific admissible evidence to show genuine issue)
- S. Motor Co. of Dade Cnty. v. Accountable Const. Co., 707 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) (elements of account stated)
- Johnson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. Americas, 248 So. 3d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (appellant must present adequate record to preserve appellate review)
- Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 2005) (issues must be presented below to be preserved on appeal)