GALGUERA v. AVILA (2026)

Galguera appeals the entry of a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence with children entered in favor of Avila. We have jurisdiction. See Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A). Galguera argues on appeal that the trial court erred in entering the injunction because the evidence failed to establish that he committed an act of domestic violence—despite admitting that he put his hands around Avila's neck.

Galguera has not provided a transcript of the evidentiary hearing where the trial court heard testimony from both parties and made specific findings of fact supporting the issuance of the injunction. Without a transcript of the hearing, this Court is unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction. We are therefore constrained to affirm. See Graham v. Saintil, 51 Fla. L. Weekly D1076, ––– So.3d ––––, 2026 WL 1476415 (Fla. 3d DCA May 27, 2026) (“The trial court has broad discretion in granting, denying, or modifying injunctions, and unless a clear abuse of discretion is demonstrated, appellate courts will not disturb the trial court's decision.” (citation modified)); Fletcher-Johnson v. Johnson, 423 So. 3d 420 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (“Without a transcript, we cannot determine whether Appellee's petition for injunction was supported by competent, substantial evidence, and therefore cannot review whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting the petition.”); Rodriguez v. Lorenzo, 215 So. 3d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (applying Applegate and noting that, in the absence of a transcript of the relevant hearing, the reviewing court is unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion); 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.”).

Affirmed.

GORDO, J.