HARTELUST v. SCHWARTZ (2026)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Alexander HARTELUST, Appellant, v. Thomas SCHWARTZ, Appellee.

No. 3D25-613

Decided: February 25, 2026

Before LOGUE, BOKOR, and GOODEN, JJ.

Alexander Hartelust, in proper person. Thomas Schwartz, in proper person.

While the Appellant challenges the trial court's findings of fact reached after a non-jury trial on the merits, he provides no transcript of the evidentiary hearing. In the absence of a transcript, “we are unable to evaluate the evidence and testimony presented at trial to ascertain whether or not the trial court's findings and reasoning ․ were well-founded.” Shojaie v. Gables Court Pro. Ctr., Inc., 974 So. 2d 1140, 1142 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). In these circumstances, we are constrained to affirm. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979); All Cntys. Surplus LLC v. Flamingo S. Beach I Condo. Ass'n, 211 So. 3d 1096, 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network