SOUTHSIDE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF JACKSONVILLE, INC.
v.
CHRISTOPHER A. WALKER, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR THE BONDHOLDERS OF SOUTHSIDE CHURCH OF CHRIST OF JACKSONVILLE, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The appellate court affirmed a foreclosure judgment, holding that the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the lower court's finding of standing. The court presumed the lower court had sufficient evidence due to the appellant's failure to provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.
Yes, the appellate court held that the appellant failed to demonstrate reversible error. The court presumed the trial court had sufficient evidence to support its standing determination because the appellant did not provide a transcript of the evidentiary hearing.
[1] A party appealing a foreclosure judgment must demonstrate reversible error, and absent a sufficient record, an appellate court must presume the trial court's findings are…
[2] An appellant's failure to provide a transcript or statement of evidence from an evidentiary hearing requires an appellate court to presume the trial court's findings were…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The sole argument Appellant raises in this foreclosure appeal is that there was insufficient competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Appellee had standing to foreclose as successor trustee to the church’s bondholders.”
This quote introduces the central issue of the appeal regarding the appellee's standing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant challenged a foreclosure judgment, arguing the successor trustee lacked standing. The appellant contended that documentary evidence, suc…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Supplementation Of Appellate Record cases and more on FLexlaw
KELSEY, J.
The sole argument Appellant raises in this foreclosure appeal is that there was insufficient competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Appellee had standing to foreclose as successor trustee to the church’s bondholders. Appellant argues that the documentary evidence attached to the final judgment was insufficient to establish standing and that alone is reason to reverse. Among those exhibits were ballots accepting Appellee as successor trustee, and his notarized acceptance of that office, which recites that the holders of a majority in principal amount of bonds approved his appointment. Appellant argues the ballots were not witnessed or notarized, the number of ballots was insufficient to support election of a successor trustee, and Appellee’s acceptance of office proved nothing.
We reject Appellant’s arguments. The trial court conducted an evidentiary hearing below, at which the parties had the opportunity to address these arguments. See Walton v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 201 So. 3d 831, 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Where the documentary evidence is insufficient to prove standing at the time of the filing of the complaint, a witness may provide sufficient testimony to prove standing.”). Although this hearing was not transcribed, this Court provided more than ample time for Appellant to supplement the record with a transcript or statement of evidence under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.200(b)(5) and (f)(2). Appellant has failed to furnish a statement in lieu of transcript. Without a transcript of the evidentiary hearing, we must presume that the lower court’s determination of standing was supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Snowden v. Wells Fargo Bank, 172 So. 3d 506, 507–08 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (affirming where we could not “rule out the possibility that the trial court heard” sufficient evidence to establish standing) (citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1151 (Fla. 1979) (placing burden on appellant to demonstrate reversible error, failing which appellate court will affirm)). We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED. ROBERTS and WINOKUR, JJ., concur. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Walton v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co. for Morgan Stanley ABS Cap. I Inc., 201 So. 3d 831 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)