FREDDY CAICEDO

v.

ALFRED LEONARDO OSPINA

s eration the court having n, YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED that such further proceedings be had in said with the opinion of this CO cause in accordance URT attached hereto and 'incorporated as part of this order, and with th procedure and laws of the STATE OF F e rules of LORIDA. Lower Tribunal Case Number(s): 13-003788-SP 23 WITNESS the Honorable Abby Qrnamon, Administrative Judge oftheA ll Court ofthe Eleventh J ' ' ' ' ppe ate Division ofthe Circuit udicial Circuit ofFlorida and the seal ofthe said Circuit Court at Miami th' May, 2015. , is 26*“ day of A True Copy Attest * r\ 5‘ CM jfQfg;'o1;1rt;si;i K A 1* i J H , :1 ‘k '_V re], . U5‘fi Z‘ $1;::~ M ."h~‘~_‘ -..A- ‘\ ueline Abu—Na sar Clerky __‘.,_,. _‘ _ _. '\ - ;, . ‘~F \_-_;. ._ 2,1 V Mandate rev. 10/22/2008 [*2] IN THE CIRCUIT COURT%)F THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES

I7’\'lt ' To FILE REHEARH\IG MOTION, _ AND, IF FILED, DIsPosED OF M’ ‘ \— ‘ */‘RD IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,

FLORIDA

APPELLATE DIVISION

FREDDY cAIcEDo, CASE NUMBER: 13-402 AP Appellant-Defendant, CASE BELOW: 13-3788 SP 23 R Q² .-55 ALFRED LEONARDO OSPINA, ‘P-‘Br;

V.

Appellee-Plaintiff. / Q‘ Opinion filed: Q9 , 20l~5Panel Date: October 23, 2014. -It my Ill 9- NW‘9 ='l Hd 3E€333-l: 30$ U-?l'll-zl »-~¢~\ \.¢ On appeal from a final judgment rendered by the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, I-Inn T Inrln QI1/\n-av Q1-chin 1l\I11¢ l_1111\l(L lJ11l5\/1 L,L\-4lll- Freddy Caicedo, pro se Appellant-Defendant. Alfred Leonardo Ospina, pro se Appellee-Plaintiff. Before MIRANDA, RUIZ-COHEN, and HIRSCH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Alfred Leonardo Ospina (“Tenant” or “Plaintiff-Tenant”) filed a statement of claim against Ilba Gomez and Freddy Caicedo. Apparently, the trial judge stated the damages amount in open court but subsequently reconsidered and increased the damages awarded to the Plaintiff- Tenant. Freddy Caicedo (“Appellant-Agent”) appeals the judgment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to section 26.0l2(l), Florida Statutes (2004). Appellate Record The Appellant-Agent attached documents to his initial brief; neither the appellate record nor the judgment clarifies whether the lower couit considered these documents. This situation L “C3P1(D U)£25+OD E5’-co E3” .._. .._.<21::5 - .-(F3 <5 ' sue: whether we may review the documents attached to the brief, We observe that two district courts reviewed documents attached to briefs when litigants appealed JACQUHJNEABU-NA$3AR [*3] cases without legal representation. Scott v. State, 907 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); McDufi'ie v. City of Jacksonville, 763 So. 2d 1201 (Fla. lst DCA 2000). Here, both the Appellant-Agent and the Tenant litigate this appeal without legal counsel. Therefore, we find Scott and McDu]j‘ie applicable and consider the documents attached to the brief. Merits Analysis The Appellant-Agent contends that error occurred where the trial court initially stated in G) 69 p-l L-J U1 _C>

CDCD

open court that the Plaintiff-Tenant would receiv "s damages but subsequently increased the damages to $5000.00. Although the Appellant-Agent did not submit a transcript, we find that the judgment corroborates his assertion; specifically, the trial court stated that she announced her “ruling in open court”, and “after considering all the evidence,” she “reconsidered the” damages (R. at 17). Regarding the gap between oral and Written rulings, Glick v. Glick stated that an “oral pronouncement must control over a later written order”. 874 So. 2d 1238, 1241 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). See Bassett v. Saunders, 835 So. 2d 1198, 1201 (Fla. lst DCA 2002); contra Dalton v. Dalton, 412 So. 2d 928, 929-930 (Fla. lst DCA 1982). Glick suggests that the lower court erred by orally stating the damages in open court and then increasing the damages. In this matter, the trial court awarded $5,000 damages (R. at 17). Although the trial court did not identify whether the Tenant’s property, damage to the Tenant’s property, or a contract provision motivated the $5,000 damages award, the judgment does indicate that the county court considered evidence and testimony. Id. Indeed, the judgment states that the Tenant “proved that man" o still in the property at that time” mpetent substantial +> zr..... U1 crSE.ca <53E5 ' $5 15S ca E² C3c> J L er . . evidence must support a damages award. Wagner v. Bank ofAm., N.A., 143 So. 3d 447, 448 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Reversible error occurs when “no competent, substantial evidence” supports the damages award. Id During a bench trial, the judge’s damages detemiination “is entitled to the weight” accorded to aju1y’s damages assessment. Standard Oil Co. v. Dunagan, 171 So. 2d 622, 624 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). When a county court tries a case without a jury, “a presumption of correctness” clothes the factual findings “on appeal”, and we will not disturb the findings “unless the appellant can demonstrate that they are clearly erroneous”. Martinez v. Ascensores Servas, S.A., 89 So. 3d 956, 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). We find that the documents attached to the initial brief challenge the presumption of correctness clothing the factual findings. [*4] Although the Appellant-Agent did not provide a transcript, he attached the following docrunents to his initial brief: the residential lease, the fund return agreement dated February 3, 2013, and an agreement to return $1,000 dated February 16, 2013. The statement of claim clearly indicated that the case involved renting an apartment and an “agreement to fix deficiencies” (R. at 2).‘ Therefore, the appellate record portrays that the Tenant litigated a contractual breach theory. However, in the judgment, the trial court did not identify the contract, if any, leading to (J1 £3;:.. the damage We observe that the $5000 damages award becomes questionable because the fund return agreement, dated February 3, 2013, discusses returning a $1,175 deposit and first-month rent equaling $1,175 in addition to a one-time penalty in the amount of 10% of $2,350 (Initial Br., Ex. C). Furthennore, a separate agreement, dated February 16, 2013, discusses returning $1,000 cash. Id. at Ex. E. From our viewpoint, the agreements dated February 3rd and 16th do not support $5,000 damages; even if the trial court admitted these agreements, the contracts at most may support $3585 damages, not $5000 damages.² Standard Oil Co., 171 So. 2d at 624. At this juncture, we camiot discern from the appellate record whether the trial court reviewed the contracts attached to the initial brief or whether other admitted evidence justified increasing the damages to $5000. Because the Appellant-Agent’s arguments do not warrant reversing the liability judgment, we affirm the liability determination. Martinez, 89 So. 3d at \OK11 :4 "ECD L wever, we vacate the damages award and remand for the trial court to reconsider the damages or make factual findings justifying the $5000 damages award. See Garcia v. Carter Constr. Co., 794 So. 2d 723, 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (reversing and remanding for a new trial on damages where the plaintiff alleged $17,822 damages, the trial judge awarded the plaintiff $4,279, and the “judgment did not contain any findings of fact or analysis”) (footnote omitted). AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; and REMANDED. 1 The appellate record does not include any amended pleadings, and the judgment did not state that the Plaintiff-Tenant amended his statement of claim before trial. Fla. Sm. Cl. R. 7.020(a); Fla. R. Civ. P. l.190(e).² The February 3, 2013 agreement also included a monthly 10% interest provision beginning l\/Im-pk it ’)fil'2 /Initial Rr Fv (‘I Thie nmvieinn rlirl nnt elarifv whether the interest would LY1\,QJ\1LL .1’ bI\IL_l \;111uw4 1.14., ;_u;- \.//- as-av r:vv-~-v»- v--w --v-1 —-w---J --------—- —--— --——-——-~ --—~—~~ apply to the deposit, the first month rent, or both. Id. In the judgment, the court did not clarify whether she calculated the $5000 damages after applying the 10% interest provision (R. at 17). “OPIEE FUIi.l*€I0§iEZ} ’§’7=l'E‘ =t{T¥-."."T‘-”.'*"."~°"*-“‘ ‘OF RECORD AMI? TO .A.£‘~l"i.' §.".:-3*:\§.‘i>f"I_ "OT REPRESENTED BY COUNSKL [*5] IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH

JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, INAND FOR MIAMI-DADE

COUNTY, FLORIDA. APPELLATE DIVISION

CASE NO.: 13-402 AP LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 13-003788-SP 23 FREDDY CAICEDO, Appellant(s), vs. ALFRED LEONARDO OSPINA, Appel1ee(s). r_ a'§e-

AVH

rm QI¥3,@0d Qt-Enlld C35 rinmi’-As ‘Bl tfllfi / ~ Wm :*£i$".f Upon consideration by the court, Appe11ant’s Motion for Rehearing (Evidence of Fraud,:I§fp Violation and Appellee Commit Perjury in Court) is hereby: I -»' _; I0 =21 H [ ] Granted Denied CRISTINA MIRANDA, SAMANTHA RUIZ-COH N, and MILTON HIRSCH JJ CONCUR ,’/ It is sway-zred this % day of , 20 I

Q .

p I c_/ K _¢/’

RISTI AMI

* ' I \ E .. “ § \ 4 s ~ ; HARUIZ- MILTON fi1'R'S'(Tl CC:

FREDDY CAICEDO, PRO SE

14848 SW 1o4TH STREET, #113 MIAMI, FL 33196

ALFRED LEONARDO OSPINA, PRO SE

14401, SW 1o9TH STREET MIAMI, FL 33186 Order Grt/Den Mtn. rev. 10/30/2008 U~Nl-XSSAR

JACQ