HOTEL INVESTOR GROUP LLC v. DAVIS (2023)

Hotel Investor Group, LLC, (“HIG”) appeals a final judgment of dismissal. In response to a motion for judgment on the pleadings, HIG's counsel made an ore tenus motion for leave to amend its complaint. The trial court granted the requested leave. After HIG served an amended complaint, a second motion for judgment on the pleadings was filed. At the hearing on that subsequent motion, HIG's counsel ostensibly made another ore tenus motion for leave to amend. This second time, however, the trial court denied the request for leave and granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings in an order that is now on appeal.

HIG argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the second ore tenus motion. We know nothing about that motion, however, because HIG has not provided a transcript or a statement of evidence in lieu of a transcript. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.200(b)(5). HIG in essence brings forward a record on appeal that “is inadequate to demonstrate reversible error.” Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979). For instance, we cannot determine whether the issues raised on appeal were first brought before the trial court and, thus, preserved for purposes of appeal. In any event, we must presume that the trial court had a good reason, based on what was presented at the hearing, to deny the second ore tenus motion to amend, so we affirm. J P Morgan Chase Bank v. Combee, 883 So. 2d 330, 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (affirming because, without a transcript of a hearing at issue on appeal, the appellate court was left “without any information as to what” transpired in the proceeding, and the trial court was presumed to have a proper basis for its ruling).

To the extent HIG argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for rehearing without first conducting a hearing, it invited any alleged error by agreeing that a hearing was not necessary under the circumstances. See Anderson v. State, 93 So. 3d 1201, 1206 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (“Under the invited-error doctrine, a party may not make or invite error at trial and then take advantage of the error on appeal.”).

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Roberts, M.K. Thomas, and Tanenbaum, JJ., concur.