Silvana Capuzzo v. Fred Manuel Joch

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Chird District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 14, 2026.
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

No. 3D25-0632
Lower Tuobunal No. 22-18044-CA-01

Silvana Capuzzo,
Appellant,

Vs.

Fred Manuel J och,
Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Migna
Sanchez-Llorens, J udge.

Law Offices of Shaun M Zaciewski, P.A., and Shaun M. Zaciewski, for
appellant.

Matthew E. Ladd, P.A., and Matthew E. Ladd, for appellee.

Before SCALES, C.J., and MILLER and BOKOR, JJ.

SCALES, CJ.

2
Appellant Silvana Capuzzo appeals an April 2, 2025 final judgment in
which the trial court, after conducting a bench trial, determined that a
purported ten-year residential lease between Capuzzo (as tenant) and
appellee Fred Manuel Joch (as landlord) was unenforceable.
In January 2020, the parties entered into the lease, which was
prepared by Capuzzo, a licensed real estate professional. The trial court
correctly concluded that, contrary to the requirements of former section
689.01(1) of the Florida Statutes,1 the lease agreement lacked two
subscribing witnesses and was therefore invalid. See Skylake Ins. Agency,
Inc. v. NMB Plaza, LLC, 23 So. 3d 175, 178 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (affirming
that portion of a summary judgment order concluding that the lease’s failure
to contain the signatures of two witnesses in violation of section 689.01(1)
rendered the subject commercial lease unenforceable).
Notwithstanding the lease’s invalidity due to the failure to comply with
former section 689.01(1), the trial court allowed Capuzzo to introduce trial
evidence on her claim that Joch should be equitably estopped from
disavowing the lease and that Joch waived his right to challenge the lease’s
1 Prior to its repeal by the Florida Legislature, effective July 1, 2020, this
statute provided in relevant part that a residential lease of more than one
year, such as the one allegedly contemplated by the parties, must be signed
in the presence of two subscribing witnesses. § 689.01, Fla. Stat. (2019).

3
validity by accepting rent and certain improvements to the leasehold paid for
by Capuzzo. In the challenged judgment, the trial court rejected Capuzzo’s
estoppel and waiver defenses.
Capuzzo argues that we should reverse the judgment because the trial
evidence supports her estoppel and waiver arguments. We, however, have
not been provided with a trial transcript. Because claims of estoppel and
waiver are necessarily fact-based, see, e.g., Leybovich v. SecureAlert, Inc.,
237 So. 3d 1104, 1104-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017), on this record we are unable
to ascertain whether the trial court’s factual determinations on estoppel and
waiver are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Fla. High School
Athletic Ass’n v. Johnson, 279 So. 3d 794, 797 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (affirming
the trial court’s venue ruling and holding that, because “we do not have the
benefit of a hearing transcript, we are unable to determine . . . whether the
factual determinations made by the trial court at the evidentiary hearing are
supported by competent, substantial evidence[.]”). Capuzzo has not
overcome the presumption of correctness of the trial court’s findings. Joseph
v. Henry, 367 So. 3d 1280, 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2023). Thus, we are
compelled to affirm the challenged judgment.
Affirmed.

4