HAMAD v. SARSOUR (2026)

Ghina Hamad appeals the trial court's Agreed Order ¹ Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Stay Litigation And Compel Mandatory Arbitration and its Revised Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Confirm Binding Arbitration and Entry of Final Judgment. Hamad argues the trial court erred in staying litigation and compelling arbitration because Appellee, Hanan Sarsour, waived his right to arbitration under a purchase and sale agreement by seeking injunctive relief and seeking discovery related to the merits of this breach of contract action. Hamad also argues the trial court erred in entering the order confirming Sarsour's arbitration award and entering final judgment in Sarsour's favor because the arbitrator allegedly erred in awarding Sarsour attorney's fees and prejudgment interest as part of the arbitration award.

The record provided is insufficient to warrant reversal. 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 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.”). Both orders come after material hearings for which we have no transcript, and the Parties’ briefs challenge each other's reiterations of the material procedural background necessary to properly review this case. See Roberts v. Diaz, 343 So. 3d 156, 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (“Without a transcript of the trial court's hearings, we cannot properly resolve the factual issues on appeal.”); Balaguer v. Physicians for the Hand, LLC, 199 So. 3d 375, 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Balaguer has not provided a transcript of the arbitration hearing[.] ․ This failure is fatal to the appeal, as there is not a sufficient record before us to reach the merits of Balaguer's claim that the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Agreement when she awarded the shortfall to Physicians. We are unable to determine from this record what evidence was introduced at the hearing, what arguments were raised or waived at the hearing, or what issues may have been tried by the consent of the parties.”). Accordingly, we are constrained to affirm.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   It is unclear why the trial court titles this order as an “Agreed Order” when reviewing the order on its face shows that it is not. The order characterizes the Parties’ arguments below and ultimately renders a decision in favor of Sarsour. Substantively, this is an adversarial order against Hamad's interests, and we will treat it as such. See e.g., Galvez v. CIT Bank, 407 So. 3d 522, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025) (looking at the substance of an order to determine it was not final, even though the order was titled a final order).

LINDSEY, J.