IVANNA LISETTE ORTIZ v. JED NIKKO VALDEZ SANGALANG

S IXTH D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF F LORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2024-0989
Lower Tribunal No. 2015-DR-17554-O
_____________________________
IVANNA LISETTE O RTIZ,
Appellant,
v.
J ED N IKKO V ALDEZ SANGALANG,
Appellee.
Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.130 from the Circuit Court for Orange County.
Elaine A. Barbour, Judge.
December 23, 2025
NARDELLA, J.
Ivanna Ortiz (“Former Wife”) appeals the entry of a temporary order which
modified time-sharing by revoking Former Wife’s time-sharing altogether and
prohibiting contact between herself and the minor child. We have jurisdiction. See
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)b.
Despite filing four post-order motions asking the trial court to reconsider its
ruling, the arguments advanced on appeal by Former Wife were never presented to
the trial court and thus are unpreserved. Klein v. Manville, 363 So. 3d 1163, 1170

2
(Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (quoting Bryant v. State, 901 So. 2d 810, 822 (Fla. 2005)); see
also Aills v. Boemi, 29 So. 3d 1105, 1109 (Fla. 2010) (“Except in cases of
fundamental error, an appellate court cannot consider any ground for objection not
presented to the trial court.”). Further, there is no transcript of the proceedings
leading to the order modifying time-sharing. Thus, this Court is unable to reach the
merits of Former Wife’s claims and without an adequate means for evaluating the
factual issues asserted. See Appelgate 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 a to require
reversal.”). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
TRAVER, C.J., and WOZNIAK, J., concur.
Michael J. Ellis and Samuel Alexander, of Alexander Appellate Law P.A., DeLand,
for Appellant.
Jed Nikko Valdez Sangalang, Maitland, pro se.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED