Background
Twarla M. Hill appealed a judgment of the County Court for Miami-Dade County in favor of Town Park Village No. 1, Inc. The Third District’s brief per curiam opinion does not describe the parties’ underlying factual dispute or specify the relief awarded below.
The appellate court cited section 719.108(10)(d), Florida Statutes (2025), which permits an association to issue notice and sue for eviction as though it were a landlord when a tenant fails to make a required payment to the association after written demand. The court also cited Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee concerning an appellate court’s inability to resolve fact-dependent challenges without a record of the trial proceedings.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District affirmed the county court’s judgment without further analysis. Its citation to section 719.108(10)(d) indicates that the statutory authority allowing an association to pursue eviction for nonpayment after written demand supported the affirmance.
The court’s citation to Applegate also reflects a record-based limitation on appellate review. Without a trial record supplying the factual context, the appellate court could not determine that the judgment lacked evidentiary support, rested on no alternative theory, or resulted from a legal misconception requiring reversal.
Key Takeaways
- Section 719.108(10)(d) authorizes an association governed by chapter 719 to use specified landlord remedies, including eviction, when a tenant fails to make a required payment after written demand.
- An appellant challenging fact-dependent aspects of a judgment must provide a sufficient record of the trial proceedings.
- Without that record, an appellate court may be unable to determine that the evidence, an alternative legal theory, or the applicable law requires reversal.
Why It Matters
The decision highlights both the eviction authority available under Florida’s cooperative-association statute and the practical importance of preserving and furnishing a complete appellate record. Even when an appellant disputes the factual or legal basis for a trial court’s ruling, the reviewing court cannot resolve those issues without enough context to evaluate them.