What did the appeals court decide?

The appeals court affirmed the lower court's judgment because the appellant did not provide an adequate record for review.

Why does an adequate record matter?

An appellate court needs the trial record to evaluate factual findings and legal rulings; without it, the court cannot determine that the trial judge erred.

Who is affected by this decision?

The appellant, Shella Lucien, is affected because her challenge to the County Court decision was unsuccessful; the appellee's favorable judgment remains in place.

Can this decision be appealed further?

A further appeal might be possible (for example, to the Florida Supreme Court) but would depend on applicable rules and whether a timely motion for rehearing is filed; the opinion notes it is not final until disposition of any timely rehearing motion.

Shella Lucien v. Pablo Martinez Ruiz

Docket 3D2025-1529

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

CivilAffirmed

Filed: Apr 29, 2026 · 2 days ago
Jurisdiction: Florida
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
Type: Opinion
Case type: Civil
Disposition: Affirmed
Docket: 3D2025-1529

Appeal from a County Court judgment in Miami-Dade County

Summary

The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a County Court decision in a case between appellant Shella Lucien and appellee Pablo Martinez Ruiz. The appellate court, writing per curiam, concluded that Lucien failed to provide an adequate record for appellate review. Citing Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, the court explained that without a sufficient record it cannot resolve factual disputes or determine that the trial judge misapplied the law, so reversal is not warranted.

Issues Decided

Whether the trial court's judgment could be reversed given the record provided on appeal
Whether the appellant supplied an adequate record for meaningful appellate review

Court's Reasoning

The court relied on the principle that an appellate court cannot assess factual issues or conclude a legal error occurred without an adequate trial record. Because the appellant did not provide the necessary record, the court could not determine that the trial judge's findings were unsupported or that the law had been misconceived. This lack of record compelled affirmance under controlling precedent.

Authorities Cited

Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)

Parties

Appellant: Shella Lucien
Appellee: Pablo Martinez Ruiz
Judge: Ayana Harris

Key Dates

Opinion filed: 2026-04-29

What You Should Do Next

1
Consider filing a motion for rehearing
If the appellant believes the panel overlooked material points, she may timely file a motion for rehearing as allowed by the court's rules.
2
Submit a complete record on any further appeal
If pursuing further review, ensure the appellate record includes transcripts and necessary documents so a higher court can assess factual and legal issues.
3
Consult an attorney
Seek counsel to evaluate potential grounds for further appeal and to assist in preparing any rehearing or higher-court filings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the appeals court decide?: The appeals court affirmed the lower court's judgment because the appellant did not provide an adequate record for review.
Why does an adequate record matter?: An appellate court needs the trial record to evaluate factual findings and legal rulings; without it, the court cannot determine that the trial judge erred.
Who is affected by this decision?: The appellant, Shella Lucien, is affected because her challenge to the County Court decision was unsuccessful; the appellee's favorable judgment remains in place.
Can this decision be appealed further?: A further appeal might be possible (for example, to the Florida Supreme Court) but would depend on applicable rules and whether a timely motion for rehearing is filed; the opinion notes it is not final until disposition of any timely rehearing motion.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                         Opinion filed April 29, 2026.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                             No. 3D25-1529
                   Lower Tribunal No. 25-26381-SP-23
                          ________________


                              Shella Lucien,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         Pablo Martinez Ruiz,
                                  Appellee.



      An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Ayana
Harris, Judge.

     Shella Lucien, in proper person.

     Pablo Martinez Ruiz, in proper person.


Before FERNANDEZ, MILLER, and BOKOR, JJ.

     PER CURIAM.
      Affirmed. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d

1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a[n adequate] record . . . 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 as to

require reversal.”).




                                       2