IVANNA LISETTE ORTIZ
v.
JED NIKKO VALDEZ SANGALANG
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.
An appellate court cannot consider arguments not presented to the trial court and cannot reach the merits of claims without an adequate record, including a transcript of the proceedings.
[1] Arguments not presented to the trial court are unpreserved for appellate review and cannot be considered on appeal except in cases of fundamental error.
Previewing 1 of 1 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.”
Court explaining why it cannot reach the merits without an adequate record
The trial court entered a temporary order modifying time-sharing by revoking the former wife's time-sharing altogether and prohibiting contact between…
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 Preservation Of Arguments For Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-0989 Lower Tribunal No. 2015-DR-17554-O _____________________________
IVANNA LISETTE ORTIZ, Appellant, v. JED NIKKO VALDEZ SANGALANG, Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County. Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.
December 23, 2025
NARDELLA, J.
Ivanna Ortiz (“Former Wife”) appeals the entry of a temporary order which modified time-sharing by revoking Former Wife’s time-sharing altogether and prohibiting contact between herself and the minor child. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b. Despite filing four post-order motions asking the trial court to reconsider its ruling, the arguments advanced on appeal by Former Wife were never presented to the trial court and thus are unpreserved. Klein v. Manville, 363 So. 3d 1163, 1170
2
(Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (quoting Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2005)); see also Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 2010) (“Except in cases of fundamental error, an appellate court cannot consider any ground for objection not presented to the trial court.”). Further, there is no transcript of the proceedings leading to the order modifying time-sharing. Thus, this Court is unable to reach the merits of Former Wife’s claims and without an adequate means for evaluating the factual issues asserted. See Appelgate 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 the factual context, neither can an appellate court reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law a to require reversal.”). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK, J., concur.
Michael J. Ellis and Samuel Alexander, of Alexander Appellate Law P.A., DeLand, for Appellant.
Jed Nikko Valdez Sangalang, Maitland, pro se.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore (Fla. 6th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Aills v. Luciano Boemi, M.D., 29 So. 3d 1105 (Fla. 2010)
- Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 2005)