GHINA HAMAD
v.
HANAN SARSOUR
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.
Ghina Hamad appealed orders compelling arbitration and confirming an arbitration award in favor of Hanan Sarsour on a breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed due to an insufficient record, lacking transcripts of material hearings necessary to review Hamad's challenges to the arbitration orders.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's orders because the record was insufficient to warrant reversal, specifically due to the absence of transcripts from material hearings that were necessary to properly resolve the factual issues and determine whether the trial court misconceived the law.
[1] An appellate court cannot properly resolve underlying factual issues to conclude a trial court's judgment is not supported by evidence or an alternative theory without a…
[2] An appellate court cannot reasonably conclude a trial judge misconceived the law requiring reversal without knowing the factual context of the proceedings.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“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.”
Establishes the foundational requirement for appellate review of sufficient record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHamad and Sarsour entered into a purchase and sale agreement containing an arbitration clause. Sarsour sought arbitration, and the trial court granted…
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 Confirmation Of Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
LINDSEY, J. Ghina Hamad appeals the trial court's Agreed Order¹ Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Litigation And Compel Mandatory Arbitration and its Revised Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Binding Arbitration and Entry of Final Judgment. Hamad argues the trial court erred in staying litigation and compelling arbitration because Appellee, Hanan Sarsour, waived his right to arbitration under a purchase and sale agreement by seeking injunctive relief and seeking discovery related to the merits of this breach of contract action. Hamad also argues the trial court erred in entering the order confirming Sarsour's arbitration award and entering final judgment in Sarsour's favor because the arbitrator allegedly erred in awarding Sarsour attorney's fees and prejudgment interest as part of the arbitration award.
The record provided is insufficient to warrant reversal. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“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
1 It is unclear why the trial court titles this order as an “Agreed Order” when reviewing the order on its face shows that it is not. The order characterizes the Parties' arguments below and ultimately renders a decision in favor of Sarsour. Substantively, this is an adversarial order against Hamad's interests, and we will treat it as such. See e.g., Galvez v. CIT Bank, 407 So. 3d 522, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (looking at the substance of an order to determine it was not final, even though the order was titled a final order). the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal.”).
Both orders come after material hearings for which we have no transcript, and the Parties' briefs challenge each other's reiterations of the material procedural background necessary to properly review this case. See Roberts v. Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156, 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Without a transcript of the trial court's hearings, we cannot properly resolve the factual issues on appeal."); Balaguer v. Physicians for the Hand, LLC, 199 So. 3d 375, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Balaguer has not provided a transcript of the arbitration hearing[.] . . . This failure is fatal to the appeal, as there is not a sufficient record before us to reach the merits of Balaguer's claim that the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Agreement when she awarded the shortfall to Physicians. We are unable to determine from this record what evidence was introduced at the hearing, what arguments were raised or waived at the hearing, or what issues may have been tried by the consent of the parties.").
Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Russell v. Aronowicz (Fla. 3d DCA 2023)
- Eric Balaguer, M.D. v. Physicians FOR THE Hand, LLC, 199 So. 3d 375 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)