Background
Fairuza Saitova appealed to Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County. The opinion identifies Stephanie R. Silver as the circuit court judge and lists Denise Carballea as the appellee. The appellate docket number is 3D26-0381, and the lower tribunal number is 25-157717-SP-26. Both Saitova and Carballea appeared in proper person.
The opinion was filed November 5, 2026, and states that it was not final until disposition of a timely filed motion for rehearing. It was issued per curiam by a panel consisting of Judges Fernandez, Gordo, and Bokor. The two-page opinion does not describe the underlying dispute, the claims or defenses presented below, the evidence considered by the circuit court, or the reasons for its judgment. It also does not identify a particular appellate argument or separately discuss any substantive claim.
The Court’s Holding
The court’s disposition was “Affirmed.” It did not order a remand, reverse the circuit court’s judgment, or announce a ruling on the merits of any particular underlying claim. The opinion instead supports the affirmance with citations addressing preservation of issues for appellate review and the constraints imposed when the appellate court lacks a transcript.
First, the court cited Sunset Harbour Condo. Ass’n v. Robbins, 914 So. 2d 925, 928 (Fla. 2005), for the requirement that an issue be presented to the lower court and that the specific legal argument or ground advanced on appeal or review be included in that presentation. Sunset Harbour quoted that preservation principle from Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985). The citation explains the governing preservation standard; the opinion does not separately identify which issue, if any, Saitova failed to preserve.
Second, the court cited Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). As quoted in the opinion, Applegate explains that, without a transcript, an appellate court cannot reasonably conclude that the trial judge so misconceived the law as to require reversal. Nor can it properly resolve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence or by an alternative theory. The opinion does not provide further record details or explain how either principle applied to a specific argument.
Key Takeaways
- The Third District affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in Saitova’s appeal; the opinion supplies no substantive merits analysis.
- Preservation requires presentation of the issue below, including the specific legal argument or ground later advanced on appeal or review.
- Under the quoted Applegate principle, the absence of a transcript restricts appellate review of both asserted legal error and challenges to the judgment’s evidentiary support.
- The opinion’s citations should not be read as identifying a particular unpreserved issue or supplying facts absent from the public decision.
Why It Matters
This brief per curiam decision illustrates two procedural considerations that can shape an appeal independently of the underlying dispute: preserving the precise argument in the lower court and providing a record sufficient for appellate review. Its discussion is limited to the cited preservation and missing-transcript principles, not a general adjudication of the parties’ substantive rights.
For attorneys, the opinion is a reminder to distinguish the appellate court’s actual disposition from conclusions the sparse text does not expressly make. The court affirmed and cited controlling authorities on preservation and transcript limitations, but it did not describe the trial proceedings, evaluate particular evidence, or set out claim-specific reasoning.