Tramontana v. Bank of New York Mellon

LaROSE, Chief Judge. Carlos Tramontana appeals the final judgment of foreclosure entered in favor of Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM). He maintains that BNYM failed to establish the amounts due and owing. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). We affirm the judgment. Mr. Tramontana argues that the trial court erred in admitting BNYM’s loan payment history, which included records from prior loan servicers. He contends that BNYM failed to prove that the records qualified as business records under the evidence code. See § 90.803(6), Fla. Stat. (2014). BNYM could have established these documents as business records either by “providing evidence of a business relationship or contractual obligation between the parties that ensures a substantial incentive for accuracy” or “establish[ing] trustworthiness by independently confirming the accuracy of the third-party’s business records upon receipt.” Bank of New York v. Calloway, 157 So.3d 1064, 1072 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Mr. Tramontana argues that the record fails to show that BNYM verified the prior servicers’ records or offered any witness testimony to establish such verification. Fatally, there is no trial transcript. Without a transcript, and in the absence of fundamental error on its face, an appellate court will affirm a trial court’s decision. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So.2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not [sic] 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.”); see also 1321 Whitfield, LLC v. Silverman, 67 So.3d 435, 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (affirming final judgment of foreclosure where, due to absence of hearing transcript, this court was unable to meaningfully review the trial court’s findings). In this case, there is no record of the trial testimony, any objections, or the trial court’s rulings on such objections. The record simply reflects that the trial court admitted the loan payment history into evidence. Further, the record is devoid of any evidence introduced by Mr. Tramonta-na to disprove the amounts reflected in the loan payment history. Without a transcript, Mr. Tramontana cannot prove that BNYM failed to establish amounts due and owing or that the trial court reversibly erred. See Snowden v. Wells Fargo Bank, 172 So.3d 506, 507-08 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). Affirmed. LUCAS and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.